guidelines manual on juvenile justice best practices · thus, i am pleased to present here the...

Guidelines Manual on Juvenile Justice

Best PracticesAn Evidence-Based Approach to the Justice Reforms in Kenya

EUROPEAN UNION

3

Guidelines Manual on Juvenile Justice

Best PracticesAn Evidence-Based Approach to the Justice Reforms in Kenya

Guidelines Manual on Juvenile Justice Best Practices

4

CESVI European Union

Copyright © CESVI First published 2016

For rights of reproduction application should be made to CESVI: 24128 Bergamo

Via Broseta 68/a, Italy or by email: [email protected]

For rights of translation application should be made to CESVI to the address mentioned above. Libraries, institutions and other users registered with reproduction rights organisations may make copies in accor-dance with the licenses issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights organisation in your country.

NOTE

This manual is the result of a partnership between CESVI, CEFA, LRF and CWSK who produced the articles. The manual was edited by Diego Ottolini of CESVI.

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union.

The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication [therein] lies entirely with the author(s).

CESVI does not accept any responsibility in case of inaccuracy, error or omission, or for any consequences related to the use of this data.

Authors: Della Casa Giulia, Kagwi Daniel, Kitwe Ignatius, Njeri Ngugi Alice, Otieno Fredrick, Randazzo Silvia, Wachira Maina Patrick, Wangari Julia.

Recommended citation:

Ottolini, D. (Ed.). (2016). Guidelines Manual on Juvenile Justice Best Practices: an evidence-based approach to the Justice Reforms in Kenya. CESVI, Nairobi: Kolbe Press.

Layout and Design By:Franciscan Kolbe Press P.O. Box 468- 00217 LIMURU – KENYAEmail: [email protected] Tel: 020- 201- 4276

5

FOREWORD

Protecting children and promoting their welfare is a collective responsibility that engages both state and non-state actors. To this end, Juvenile Justice actors have obligations towards children in conflict and in contact with the law, who are hosted in the Kenya Juvenile Justice System. Paramount among these is ensuring their rights, and that no child should be unduly deprived of liberty, suffer from a lack of edu-cation or live in the shadow of fear. However, policy makers and practitioners may lack evidence-based practices to improve administration of justice to children.

Thus, I am pleased to present here the “Guidelines Manual on Juvenile Justice Best Practices” as an aide to delivering accountable, consistent and transpar-ent practice by JJAs. It is the outcome of the “Im-proving the Kenya Juvenile Justice System” project, an initiative funded by the EU which teamed gov-ernment Juvenile Justice agencies and Civil Soci-ety Organizations (CSOs) in spearheading reforms of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS). Project partners introduce practices they tested and were proved ef-fective, as a reference to support justice agencies and professionals in policymaking and front-line work.

This publication deals with children’s rights to par-ticipation, protection, service delivery and JJ coor-dination. It presents how children can be engaged


as actors in sensitising justice agencies on reforms through participatory theatre. It also details steps of case management for application of child protec-tion minimum standards across statutory institu-tions and it redefines child’s reintegration as a pro-cess rather than an event using family conferencing. Furthermore, it redesigns the institutions service de-livery through a child centred three-section model. Finally, it deals with the priority of improving coor-dination among JJA through the newly established Children Court Users Committees (CCUCs).

Guidelines are introduced on how children can be placed at the core of the justice system, detailing what needs to be done to protect them, how this needs to be done and the key people responsible.

This is a significant step forward for improved ad-ministration of justice to children as the replication and dissemination of these best practices may re-sult in more effective inter-agency cooperation as well as in a more consistent and strong system for the protection of children.

Duncan OkelloExecutive DirectorNational Council on the Administration of Justice

7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Union in funding the project, which has both built the good practices hereby described and supported this publication.

Many of the good practices presented in this pub-lication could only have been achieved with the active participation of the Kenyan governmental ju-venile justice agencies, that is, the Children Services and Probation Departments, the Judiciary and their professional partners, i.e. CESVI, Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA), Comitato Europeo per la Formazione e l’Agricultura (CEFA), Legal Re-sources Foundation (LRF), Child Welfare Society of Kenya (CWSK) and Watoto Ciao. Their openness and commitment have been highly appreciated.

Special thanks are due to the staff of CESVI, CEFA and LRF for sharing their experiences and expertise by writing the following chapters highlighting the challenges, success stories and lessons learnt while implementing the project.

A word of thanks must also be given to the children in contact and conflict with the law, who allowed our partners to get involved in their lives and ac-tively contributed in the implementation of these practices as both actors and beneficiaries. A lot has been learned thanks to their participation and it is for them that this publication is disseminated.

Many thanks also to Gabriella Waugh for proof read-ing the text.


9


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................... 5ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 7LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... 13EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 14

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 15Purposes of this publication ................................................................................................... 15Best practice ........................................................................................................................... 15Organisation of the manual .................................................................................................... 16Users ....................................................................................................................................... 16Overview of the implementing organisations ......................................................................... 17

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................... 18THE PARTICIPATORY EDUCATIONAL THEATRE .............................................................................. 18

1.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 191.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 191.3 Best Practice: The Participatory Educational Theatre ....................................................... 201.3.1 Pet Impact And Benefits ................................................................................................ 201.3.2 Innovation ...................................................................................................................... 211.3.3 Constraints And Lessons Learned .................................................................................. 211.4 Participatory Educational Theatre Guidelines .................................................................. 221.4.1 Replication ..................................................................................................................... 221.4.2 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 231.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 23

CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................................. 25THE THREE SECTIONS MODEL ...................................................................................................... 25

2.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 262.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 262.3 Best Practice: The Three-Section Model ........................................................................... 272.3.1 Counselling Section ........................................................................................................ 282.3.2 Education Section .......................................................................................................... 282.3.3 Reintegration Section ..................................................................................................... 282.3.4 Three-Sections Model Results and Impact .................................................................... 282.3.5 Innovation ...................................................................................................................... 302.3.6 Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 302.3.7 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 312.4 Three-Section Model Guidelines ...................................................................................... 31

10

2.4.1 Steps To Implement The Best Practice ........................................................................... 312.4.2 Success Factors And Sustainability ................................................................................. 332.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................... 35THE CASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS ............................................................................................. 35

3.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 363.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 363.3 Best Practice: The Case Management Model ................................................................... 373.3.1 Case Management Steps In Remand Homes ................................................................ 373.3.2 Case Management Steps In Rescue Centres .................................................................. 383.3.3 Case Management Steps In Reception Centres ........................................................... 393.3.4 Case Management Steps In Rehabilitation Schools ....................................................... 393.4 Case Management Guidelines .......................................................................................... 403.4.1 Case Management Steps ............................................................................................... 403.4.2 Guiding Principles For Case Management ..................................................................... 423.4.3 Case Management Replication ..................................................................................... 433.4.4 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 433.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................. 44THE REINTEGRATION PROCESS ..................................................................................................... 44

4.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 454.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 464.3 Best Practice: The Reintegration Process .......................................................................... 474.3.1 Reintegration Goals Safety ............................................................................................ 474.3.2 Leading Principles .......................................................................................................... 474.3.3 Five Pillars Of The Reintegration Process ....................................................................... 474.3.4 The Reintegration Process ............................................................................................. 484.3.5 The Reintegration Process Impact ................................................................................. 494.3.6 Innovation ..................................................................................................................... 494.3.7 Constraints .................................................................................................................... 504.3.8 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 504.4 The Reintegration Process Guidelines .............................................................................. 514.4.1 The Reintegration Process Steps .................................................................................... 514.4.2 Focus Activities For Reintegration ................................................................................. 514.4.3 Roles And Responsibilities Of The Reintegration Process .............................................. 524.4.4 Sustainability ................................................................................................................. 534.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 53

11


CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................................... 54THE FAMILY GROUP DECISION-MAKING MODEL .......................................................................... 54

5.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 555.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 565.3.1 International And Local Legal Instruments .................................................................... 575.3.2 The Fdgm Model In Kenya ............................................................................................. 585.3.3 Fgdm Impact .................................................................................................................. 585.3.4 Innovation ...................................................................................................................... 605.3.5 Fgdm Constraints ........................................................................................................... 605.3.6 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 605.4 Family Group Decision Making Guidelines ....................................................................... 615.4.1 The Fgdm Process .......................................................................................................... 615.4.2 Replication And Up Scaling ............................................................................................ 615.4.3 Steps To Implement The Fgdm Conference ................................................................... 625.4.4 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 635.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 64

CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................... 65THE ROLE OF CHILDREN COURT USERS COMMITTEES IN TRANSFORMING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN KENYA ......................................................................................................................... 65

6.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 666.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 676.3 Best Practice: The Children Court Users Committee ......................................................... 686.3.1 The Ccuc Status .............................................................................................................. 686.3.2 Validation ....................................................................................................................... 686.3.3 Impact ............................................................................................................................ 696.3.4 Results Of The Ccuc Practice .......................................................................................... 696.3.5 Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 706.3.6 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 706.4 Court Users Committee Guidelines ................................................................................... 706.4.1 Core Values And Objectives Of The Ccuc ....................................................................... 706.4.2 Membership, Functions, Scope And Priorities Of Ccuc .................................................. 716.4.3 Ccuc Modus Operandi .................................................................................................... 726.4.4 Replication And Up-Scaling ............................................................................................ 726.4.5 Steps To Be Undertaken To Implement The Ccuc .......................................................... 726.4.6 Success Factors .............................................................................................................. 726.4.7 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 736.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 74

13

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CCUC Children Court Users Committee

CEFA Comitato Europea per la Formazione e l’Agricoltura

CESVI Cooperazione e Sviluppo

CUC Court Users Committee

CWSK Child Welfare Society of Kenya

DCO District Children Officer

DCS Department of Children Services

FGDM Family Group Decision Making

GOK Government of Kenya

ICP Individual Care Plan

JJ Juvenile Justice

JJS Juvenile Justice System

JJA Juvenile Justice Actors

KMJA Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association

LRF Legal Resources Foundation

LSK Law Society of Kenya

NCAJ National Council on the Administration of Justice

NCCS National Council of Children Services

NLEAP National Legal Education and Aid Programme

ODPP Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

PET Participatory Educational Theatre

RRI Rapid Results Initiative

Watoto Ciao Watoto – Children in Africa Organisation

YCTC Youth Correction and Training Centre


14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Children in custody and detention are estimated to number about one million worldwide (Volz, A. 2009, p.15). In Kenya – while official statistics are not available – children held in custody in statutory institutions may be around 3,000 in any given day, and about 9-10,000 thousand in a year. In an effort to build a sound legal framework for administration of juvenile justice, Kenya ratified international legis-lation on children’s rights, i.e. the UNCRC (1989), the ACRWC (1990) and most of the relevant UN guide-lines related to the administration of justice. These were then domesticated into the national legisla-tion by the Children’s Act (2001) and captured in the Kenya Constitution (2010) and other related laws and directives on the Kenya JJS reforms.Neverthe-less, countless challenges still affect children held in the JJS, which range from excessive deprivation of liberty, to physical, psychological and sexual forms of abuse.

From 2014 to 2016, CESVI led the implementation of the 30-month long project: “Improving the Ke-nya Juvenile Justice System”. The action was funded by the European Union in partnership with major stakeholders, including the Children Services, Pro-bation and After Care Departments, CEFA, KMJA, LRF, CWSK and Watoto Ciao Trust. Other stakehold-ers engaged were the Judiciary and National Police Services. The project expanded countrywide previ-ous related initiatives that were started in 2005, and it intended to contribute towards the eradication of violence against children across all stages of the JJS in Kenya. This included prevention, early and pre-trial management, trial, post-trial and family re-integration through the implementation of coordi-nated JJS reforms at National and County level. The action targeted children in justice in the Kenya most populated counties of Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu,

Nakuru, Nyeri and Machakos, and held in 28 govern-ment care and custodial institutions, categorized as Remand Homes, Rescue Centres, Reception Centres and Rehabilitation Schools.

This publication, in the format of a Guidelines Manual, showcases how label practices have been consolidated by project testing, and have thus pro-vided concrete ground for replication. Innovative models have been established to improve child participation (Chapter 1: The Participatory Educa-tional Theatre) but also the restructuring of institu-tional response to children needs (Chapter 2: The Three-section model), whilst case management ca-pacity has been enhanced (Chapter 3). Other best practices have been established as well aimed at reducing the use of custody by enhancing the co-ordination of JJAs (Chapter 6: Children Court Users Committees), and improving a child’s exit outcomes through deinstitutionalisation protocols (Chapter 4: Reintegration) and reintegration models (Chapter 5: Family Conferencing).

These initiatives are presented within the manual in order to fill the existing gap of inadequate JJ best practice documentation in the Kenya context, and to outline a prospective plan of action on key themes and policy interventions to boost efforts that consolidate violence prevention and eradica-tion. Thus, the examination of practical knowledge hereby introduced is suitable for use by policy mak-ers, government agencies, non-governmental or-ganisations and practitioners concerned with the implementation of child-centred justice reforms. This ultimately benefits the Kenya JJS as it highlights innovative local practices that can be further repli-cated and expanded, especially in light of the child justice law reforms that are currently underway.

15


INTRODUCTION

In Kenya the ratification of international treaties in child protection and their domestication into local legislation has been sufficiently carried out. Further-more, additional law reform processes are under-way to improve the administration of justice (e.g. through diversion) due to a notable crossover of ideas and networking between state agencies and non-governmental organisations that are involved in both policy-making and service delivery in the child justice field.

Nevertheless, the JJS in Kenya faces countless prob-lems due to inadequate infrastructure and resourc-es, insufficient specialised personnel, and a limited provision of services to children in conflict and/or in contact with the law, such as legal representa-tion or education. Furthermore, there are an ever-growing number of children who are affected by poverty or dysfunctional family contexts becoming street children or are charged with status offences, some needing to commit offences in order to sur-vive. Thus, they enter the justice system and jour-ney through it, wishing to get a response to their protection needs. The intention of this book is not, however, to detail the nature and intensity of chil-dren’s problems within the JJS, but rather to focus on the solutions, and on the examples of best prac-tice that are emerging through the transformation of the child justice processes and policies that are currently under review (Sloth Nielsen G., et al. 2010).

Purposes of this publication

The renewed interest in child justice and penal re-form that was promoted by the “Improving the Ke-nya Juvenile Justice System” project can be directly linked to the desire to infuse the justice system re-form with a child-rights approach. As the Commit-tee on the Rights of the Child has pointed out on

numerous occasions, legislative provisions can go only some of the way towards creating child-friend-ly processes and procedures. The ultimate test will be whether the intentions of legislatures manage to find actual expression in the practice and delivery of appropriate services to children. Therefore, this publication draws its relevance from the fact that the application of laws and policies across the JJS is of just as equal importance to the protection of the rights of children as the actual formal legal pro-visions themselves.

The main aim of this publication is to profile the best practices tested and scaled up across select development projects in Kenya since 2005, whilst having the JJS reforms as the major target. Thus, it is designed like a manual to provide guidelines on selected thematic areas. The selection of topics is re-lated chiefly to programme delivery, to the expan-sion of services to children and to the embedding of human rights practice in criminal justice processes. An additional intention is to inspire the creative and participative exercise of sharing successes in order to benefit all children across the justice system. This will promote replication and will inspire stakehold-ers across both government and non-governmental sectors to engage in institutional improvements.

Best practice

The themes selected for consideration in the ensu-ing chapters cannot be regarded as exhaustive of all the issues falling within the child justice context, but rather they have been selected for their relevance in regard to common issues faced within the child justice system, and to ensure the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child at a domestic level. In particular, they highlight the best practices which are able to address children’s depri-

16

vation of liberty as a major setback and may help to promote an improved administration of justice. The criteria for the inclusion of the selected practices are based on the following principles:

• The practice gives particular expression to inter-national standards and instruments;

• The practice is efficient and effective;

• The practice can be replicated in similar situations or in diverse contexts;

• An evaluation or analysis of the practice has been conducted;

• Vulnerable, marginalised or minority groups are targeted;

• The practice indicates a trend which improves access to justice, or streamlines the delivery of justice-related services;

• The practice fosters the implementation of chil-dren’s rights in a specific context.

The authors hope that this volume will guide fur-ther improvements in the practice and speed of the transformation of child justice systems at a national and local level. It is not intended as the final word on the good management and delivery of services to children in conflict and/or contact with the law. Rather it is an attempt to provide some basic guide-lines for improving some specific areas of the cur-rent practice of child justice in Kenya.

Organisation of the manual

The manual consists of six chapters, each presenting the content of the proposed best practice through an abstract. Though the geographical context and the stakeholders engaged in the implementation of the practice may be similar across the entire manual, a brief description is provided to highlight diversity. The problem statement and subsequent definitions clarify the background motivating the practice and its demarcation. Next, the practice is introduced, in-cluding its constraints, impact and possible sustain-ability. Step-by-step guidelines are finally provided to explain how its implementation is carried out, in-cluding a few recommendations.

Chapter one provides an overview on Participatory Educational Theatre (PET) as a powerful tool for al-lowing children to actively participate in awareness creation on justice issues and spearhead the justice system reforms.

Chapter two explores the children statutory insti-tutions framework, and redesigns its approach by focusing the institutions’ operational structure on three major pillars that will work towards achieving a child-centred and rights-based approach custody system. These pillars are counselling, education and reintegration, and correspond to the running of three related institutions’ sections.

Chapter three analyses the case management pro-cess, presenting its various steps aimed towards properly building and implementing an effective action plan that is tailored to identify and respond to the needs of each child.

Chapter four explains the reintegration process as opposed to the current repatriation system, detail-ing its goals, principles and major steps that are aimed at disengaging the child from the justice sys-tem and providing the child with well-being, safety and permanency at home.

Chapter five explores family conferencing further as a specific reintegration strategy that allows families to be fully engaged in owning the plans and actions necessary for their child’s reunification.

Chapter six analyses the Court Users Committee model which provides a forum for all JJS actors to coordinate their actions and be accountable to one another for the improved administration of justice.

Users

This manual has been designed for use by policy-makers and practitioners in the JJS – including gov-ernment agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society actors – who specifically:

17


• Consider that the JJS requires innovate practices to improve its administration of justice and in order to reduce the levels of violence found within the system;

• Want to ensure that their work does not adversely affect the situation of children;

• Want to promote sustainable solutions to reduce and prevent deprivation of liberty.

Overview of the implementing organisations

The best practices presented in this manual have been implemented by the following organisations:

Department of Children Services (DCS): based with-in the Ministry of Labour and East Africa Commu-nity, it draws its mandate from the Children’s Act, 2001. Its vision is to safeguard the rights and wel-fare of all children in Kenya through implementa-tion of relevant policies, coordination, supervision and delivery of services. Its mandate is to ensure the implementation and provision of legal and policy frameworks through established structures, institu-tions and programmes.

CESVI: an Italian NGO founded in 1985, that works towards global solidarity in 25 countries worldwide, pursuing the ideal of social justice in emergencies, rehabilitation and reconstruction, development, ed-ucation programmes and child protection. It is the leading agency of the project which implemented the good practices highlighted in this publication.

CEFA: (Comitato Europea per la Formazione e l’Agricoltura) is an Italian NGO established in 1972 that is active in 10 countries across Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF): is an inde-pendent not-for-profit national civil society organ-isation that was founded in 1993. Its main area of fo-cus is on the administration of justice, governance, research in human rights and topical access to jus-tice issues.

18

CHAPTER ONE

The Participatory Educational Theatre

Author

Giulia Della Casa - Junior Professional in child protection

Organization: The European Committee for Training and Agriculture (CE FA)

Abstract

Participatory Educational Theatre (PET) is a methodology created in the seventies by the Brazilian the-atre director Augusto Boal. This powerful methodology demolishes the traditional barrier between actors and audience within classical theatre in order to involve and question a community on given problems. Its main characteristic is to involve the audience through posing questions and problems, rather than simply supplying answers and solutions. In the “Improving the Kenya Juvenile Justice Sys-tem” project, PET involves children who are hosted at Rehabilitation Schools, and who are also the main beneficiaries of the project. Its results are two-fold: firstly, it improves child participation as rights bearers, giving them the opportunity to express and share their views and experiences. Secondly, it creates awareness amongst the juvenile justice (JJ) actors on the hardships children go through in the JJ system, as well as involving them in proposing solutions.

19


Keywords

The Participatory Educational Theatre; Theatre of the Oppressed; child participation; community awareness

Location

CEFA, introduced PET in Kenya in 2008 and it played it in schools and communities across Nairobi and its outskirts, specifically targeting school parents. Since 2014 it has been extended across all statutory Reha-bilitation Schools in Kenya: namely Kabete, Dagore-tti, Kirigiti, Othaya, Wamumu, Likoni, Kakamega and Kericho. Rehabilitation Schools were chosen since they provide longer custody durations for children, when compared to that of other institutions. This longer time allows for a deeper impact and wider possibilities of dissemination.

Stakeholders and Partners

The Department of Children Services (DCS) is one of the main partners engaged in the implemen-tation of PET through the Rehabilitation Schools management and staff. Other key partners in its dissemination include civil society organizations’ (CSOs) stakeholders, the judiciary and the provincial administration. The target group is composed of an estimated 400 children hosted across eight Reha-bilitation Schools, who have been directly involved in the implementation of the initiative.

1.1 Problem statement

Participatory Educational Theatre is a methodology utilized to promote structural reforms that aim to achieve a violence free JJ system. It targets violence children held in statutory institutions report to have been exposed to, including physical, psychological and sexual abuse, but also bullying and peer-to-peer exploitation is targeted.

Violence due to inadequate awareness by major JJ actors on the conditions faced by the children is ex-posed, and child participation in the decision-mak-ing process is enhanced.

Participation is the fundamental right of citizenship and it is the means by which democracy is built. Therefore, all young people hold the right to con-tribute and participate in programmes that directly affect their lives. As stated in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: “States Par-ties shall assure to the child who is capable of form-ing his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accor-dance with the age and maturity of the child”. Thus, PET has been developed and practiced in order to create appropriate mechanisms that ensure a genu-ine and sustainable participation and involvement of children held in Government of Kenya (GoK) insti-tutions, especially when inadequately represented or considered rights-bearers and partners in the decision-making process.

Through this particular type of theatre, a platform has been established for children to participate in issues affecting them, exposing hidden forms of vi-olence, promoting their fight against peer violence and supporting the expression of their experiences across the JJ system. Furthermore, PET address the limited awareness among the JJ institutional ac-tors of the hardships faced by children within the JJ system. But through widespread participation the children’s magistrates, the Department of Children Services (DCS), the probation department, police department, provincial administration and prison officers have all received an opportunity to identify the problems faced by these children, and the ad-equate responses that are required of themselves.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Participatory Educational Theatre is one of the par-ticipatory theatre methodologies originating from the Theatre of the Oppressed that was established in the early 1970s by Augusto Boal – a Brazilian the-atre director and workers’ party activist. Through it, participation becomes the pivotal element in which to provide the audience with the opportunity to de-velop a critical consciousness of their collective situ-

20

ation. Participation is achieved by breaking down the traditional barriers between audience and ac-tors, and the direct involvement of the audience in the performance. They become simultaneously spectators and actors, or “spect-actors” as Boal refers to them, coining this term. Audience members rec-ognize the character(s) and their dilemmas and can identify with the people portrayed. Given that they can watch rather than live the experience, they also objectify the problems and hence begin to think critically about possible solutions or alternative ac-tions. Combining empathetic involvement with the opportunity to observe, analyse and form opinions regarding characters’ actions, an environment is created where the audience members want to think and find a solution to the dilemma; and they are giv-en the opportunity to problem solve in a safe but vital environment.

1.3 BEST PRACTICE: THE PARTICIPATORY EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

PET was implemented for the first time by CEFA in 2008, with a project titled “Children Commu-nity Safety Nets”. The plays “Mbegu Vuruga” (2008), ”Dalili” (2009) and “Jukumu” (2010) were performed across several communities. The scripts that were drafted by the project staff relied on first hand expe-riences and information, and focused on thematic areas recognized as critical in child protection. The main objective was to raise awareness on issues re-lated to parental responsibility and child protection, such as: rejection, neglect, abuse and mistreatment by parents, other family members or by the imme-diate community, and related causes, including pa-rental alcohol abuse and violent attitudes.

Between 2010 and 2014, PET plays focused on child labour and were performed by professional actors and social workers working on child protection pro-grams. Since 2014, the plays have focused on the eradication of violence against children (VAC) across the justice system and have been performed by the beneficiaries themselves, i.e. the children held in the government statutory children institutions. These children have been trained on this technique with

the institutions staff, and as a result of this innova-tion, have created a wider range of possibilities for a deeper impact on VAC reduction in the JJ system.

1.3.1 PET impact and benefits

In order to evaluate the impact of PET, quantitative tools such as interviews and questionnaires were administered to justice personnel, and monthly project reports were collated, where positive evi-dence as well as challenges and pivotal elements were documented.

The PET methodology is structured in order to make the actors the bearers of their own claims for justice. It creates for them a suitable and protected environ-ment to express themselves freely, while illustrating to the audience the abuses and mistreatments that they have been going through. Thus, it is a means for the children held in the statutory institutions to have a voice to challenge and question the power structures that are playing a crucial role in the devel-opment of their communities and the institutional justice system. At the same time, the theatrical rep-resentation of abuse, mistreatment and neglect helps children in coping and overcoming such ex-periences, improving their confidence and ability to articulate and express themselves.

Furthermore, PET performances help to increase awareness among institutional JJ actors, as well as the entire community. As one institution staff member stated: “In the initial situations there were inadequate forums to address children’s concerns. These practices (PET) have sensitized the staff and the public about children matters”. The audience is involved by taking the responsibility of somebody’s mistake or an injustice, with the ultimate goal of searching for a long term and systemic solutions, but in a fun and highly interactive way. As pointed out by an institution staff: “Our attitude has changed towards work and children issues. Violation of chil-dren’s rights has reduced substantially”.

In another example, during a training on JJ held for 26 magistrates in September 2015, children had the

21

opportunity to create awareness on how they are apprehended and placed in police custody (cells), taken to courts and finally to Rehabilitation Schools without proper judgement of their cases. The skit was touching and it moved the magistrates audi-ence to reflect on what children go through after their final ruling. They left the training resolved to handle children cases differently, and to give chil-dren the chance to express themselves in court be-fore their ruling.

1.3.2 Innovation

Violence against children held in statutory institu-tions, is one of the main challenges faced by the JJ system, due to, among other factors, a lack of child participation. Children held in GoK institutions are barely considered rights-bearers and even less so decision makers. The modalities needed to guar-antee their direct participation are still rare and unstructured, and their direct involvement in deci-sions that affect their own lives is quite limited, re-peatedly denied relevance and the forums to be ex-pressed. However, it is a fundamental responsibility of all actors working with children to allow them the opportunity to express themselves and to actively participate in actions and decisions which directly affect their lives. This applies to children in all set-tings.

How to achieve this is may be challenging, particu-larly in statutory institutions where children partici-pation is even more crucial due to their vulnerabil-ity. Struggling against the occurrence of violence, they need to learn how to cope with it in an un-friendly and adult-centred environment. Here, PET can be welcomed as an innovative practice that pro-vides children with the opportunity to reflect and act upon their lives, and gives them the power to voice their struggles, thus empowering them with vital life skills and an ability to change their own life conditions.

Moreover, the constructive dialogue generated by this form of theatre allows everyone to participate


in an active and conscious manner regarding the life conditions of these children. At the same time, children find a safe and even enjoyable space to discuss sensitive issues about their lives with peers and adults, dealing with their experienced trauma through theatre. As one child stated: “PET has en-hanced my character positively, and my confidence and self-esteem”.

1.3.3 Constraints and lessons learned

PET methodology has faced the following challeng-es and constraints:

1. A lack of resources, such as adequate structures for performances and a lack of equipment – in-cluding set design, costumes and backdrops, which were not always available during the performances, however, this problem can be overcome by using simple and easily accessible material and adapting it to the situation.

2. Dealing with personal, sensitive experiences and trauma. During the PET performances, children disclosed instances of violence con-cerning the abuse, mistreatment and injustice that they went through within the JJ system, as well as within their families and communities, and among peers. Touching on sensitive top-ics such as these, the scenes represented in the play can in fact put the young actors at risk of second victimization. This risk needs to be taken into account for two main reasons: 1) the emo-tional involvement that such a representation generates and the trauma it reveals, and 2) the fact that the audience itself can represent the abuser. Therefore, PET facilitators have always been careful in dealing with these sensitive situations, in order to avoid pointing fingers or making the JJ actors, the children’s parents and any other adults represented in the play feel blamed. On the contrary, being themselves an integral part of the system, the plays promote the participating adults to be active in solving the highlighted problems and dealing with the

22

challenges presented.

3. The role of the facilitator is crucial in determin-ing the result and the impact of the PET play. He/she needs to create a suitable space for chil-dren to feel free to express themselves and, at the same time, to positively connect with the audience to involve them in a constructive way. The facilitator needs also to be competent in the topic of the performance, in order to easily handle the audience’s interventions. Particular-ly, he/she must be able to pose the right ques-tions to the audience and to deal with all the interventions in a sensitive and moderate man-ner. The audience needs to be involved in a con-structive way, as well as supported in managing the pressing issues and emotional feelings that such a powerful methodology can generate.

1.4 PARTICIPATORY EDUCATIONAL THEATRE GUIDELINES

As stated earlier, this methodology has been uti-lised as a participatory tool in the implementation of child protection projects. The main aim has been to create an awareness of child protection issues to children’s parents, JJ actors and communities. How-ever, over the years, an important scaling-up was realized as the actors shifted from professionals to the direct beneficiaries. The 2014 Juvenile Justice Project, which saw the children hosted in statutory institutions become the PET actors, has generated a wider range of benefits and deeper impacts.

1.4.1 Replication

PET can be replicated easily, since it doesn’t have any geographical or cost constrains, but simply needs to be adapted to different contexts. It requires both the active participation of the community and the involvement of victims of oppression in drafting scripts and in the play performances themselves. However, there are some technical considerations that must be taken into account for a successful PET performance. They can be summarized in the fol-lowing steps:

1. Train the play facilitator(s) on how to deal with the audience reactions and manage sensitive is-sues.

2. Develop the script based on a sound knowl-edge of the realities where the “oppressed” live, their abilities, confidence and – from a casting point of view – personality types and physical-ity. In developing the script, beneficiaries have to be involved in an active way, to create a story based on their direct experiences and not re-lated to any pre-empted assumptions. Thus, in this first phase, genuine children participation is crucial in achieving an effective script.

3. Create the suitable conditions and space where children can feel free to express themselves, in a protected and safe environment. Here, again, the role of the facilitator is crucial.

4. Play the scene. After showing the audience the whole play based on scenes with unhappy end-ings, the facilitator invites the audience to anal-yse the story, the emerging problems and the characters. Then, the story starts afresh, but this time, the audience stops the catalytic action as it reaches a climax or crisis. Viewers are invited to step in to try out changes and propose so-lutions that might bring possible resolutions to the oppression represented. This allows the audience to challenge what they see, to relate it to their own specific circumstances and to rehearse real life solutions to known oppres-sions. To make it possible, the facilitator needs to ensure that the audience knows the structure and rules of the theatre process, and to ease the transition for the “spect-actors” from audience to stage.

5. Close the play and propose action. At the end of the performance the facilitator invites the audience to decide which changes should hap-pen in the community with regard to the issues discussed, and which actions should be taken in order to modify the situation.

As pointed out earlier, the facilitator must have good mediation and facilitation skills to ensure full

23

participation from all the participants, and to han-dle potential situations of conflict or hostility expe-rienced by the audience.

1.4.2 Sustainability

To ensure sustainability of PET activities there is need to consider the following:

• At a technical level, this methodology requires more time than other classical types of theatre. In fact, one of the fundamental elements of PET is that it focuses more on the process than on the final products. The success is not strictly related to creating a theatre piece, but on the process that the children engage with – pro-moting various forms of expression and stimu-lating change. Thus, the necessary amount of time should be ensured for the beneficiaries to be part of the process – empowering them as agents of social change.

• In developing a PET project a deep and genuine commitment is required by all the key partners involved, such as: local and international agen-cies, governmental officers, school teachers or juvenile justice stakeholders. All are crucial to ensure various levels of project sustainability.

• The facilitator is a critical element of the play and they need to be trained by an expert on this methodology. Our experience suggests that if the facilitator is a member of the community then the participation of the audience is wider and deeper, and furthermore the beneficiaries are more comfortable in acting and expressing themselves. Thus, a key strategy for sustain-ability is to build capacity among local theatre groups and to train professional actors on this particular technique. Train-the-trainers is one of the most effective ways to achieve this result.

• If a PET project is linked to a broader develop-ment context and changes that can be achieved at a community and national level, then a deep-er impact is possible. A multidimensional ap-


proach where all aspects of the changes to be achieved are included in a wider and inclusive manner is key to reaching an effective result.

• Regarding the economic aspect, the cost/effi-ciency of this methodology is undoubtedly ef-fective. In fact, the only costs to be taken into account when planning are those regarding the first phase trainings, i.e. the training of the facilitator who will manage the actors’ training. Subsequently, costs are related to the children’s’ training in institutions, and the transport and logistics for events held in the target communi-ties.

1.5 CONCLUSION

The Participatory Educational Theatre methodology is a powerful tool that can be used to strengthen the communication of relevant messages, as well as to facilitate awareness on hot child protection is-sues. It reinforces community awareness and helps victims of injustice to express themselves through drama, showing to the community what they en-dured. Within the “Improving the Kenya Juvenile Justice System” project, this methodology has been effective in addressing the various forms of systemic violence which children are exposed to in the JJ sys-tem.

In order to reduce the level of violence, the PET methodology has been utilized at two levels:

1. Child participation in the decision-making process;

2. The creation of awareness among JJ actors and the whole community.

This particular type of theatre empowers children to be the bearers of their own claim for justice. In being both the scriptwriters and the actors of the plays performed, they have the opportunity to re-veal their experience of injustice and violence. At the same time, the involvement required from the audience in searching for long-term solutions cre-ates a sense of responsibility and a constructive

24

dialogue between all the participants. As pointed out by a government institution staff: “Officers have changed their attitudes and approaches to children issues. Escapes from the institution are almost not happening anymore. Staff, children and the general public have benefited”.

Therefore, this practice is an effective and power-ful tool in the promotion of child participation and helps children to cope with their own traumatic ex-periences by sensitizing the audience responding to them. After all, as one of the children beneficia-ries stated: “PET means promotion of children rights in the form of drama”.

25

CHAPTER TWO

The Three Sections ModelAuthor:

Silvia Randazzo - Development Professional specialized in Child Protection

Organization: The European Committee for Training and Agriculture (CEFA)

Abstract

The three sections model is the tangible outcome of lessons learnt from protection and care projects that began in Kenya in 2005, which were soon developed into the “Improving the Kenya Juvenile Justice System” project that operated at a national level. These interventions targeted the Kenyan justice system reforms and enhanced service delivery to children hosted in governmental statutory institutions. To this end, coun-selling, educational and reintegration teams, as well as related programmes for institutionalised children in conflict and/or in contact with the law, were established within these institutions, with special attention provided to trauma, abuse recovery and behavioural change. As a result, each child is currently provided

26

with case management and a range of necessary services, such as counselling, education and rein-tegration, to aid in their rehabilitation and early re-lease back home and into the community.

Key words

Three sections; capacity building; counselling; edu-cation; reintegration; management; child participa-tion

Location

The three sections model was first implemented in Nairobi Children Remand Home in 2005. It was then extended to 28 statutory children institutions in the country including, Remand Homes in Likoni, Kakamega, Kisumu, Manga, Nakuru, Eldoret, Nai-robi, Kiambu, Nyeri, Malindi, Murang’a, Kericho; Rescue Centres in Nairobi, Machakos, Thika, Garissa; Rehabilitation Schools in Kabete, Dagoretti, Kirigiti, Othaya, Wamumu, Likoni, Kakamega, Kericho; and Reception Centres in Getathuru and Kirigiti.


The three sections model has been implemented from 2005 to date. This was achieved thanks to sub-sequent development projects carried out through the collaboration and synergy of the Department of Children Services (DCS) and various other partners and stakeholders, including Cesvi, CEFA and local NGOs. The DCS currently provides key leadership in managing the three sections model.

The target group is comprised of children and staff hosted across 28 institutions across the country, holding about 2000 children daily under the care of around 400 government staff, who have all received training in counselling, education and reintegration.

2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Kenya is one of the many African countries that have domesticated almost the entire key Interna-tional Conventions on Human Rights. On children’s rights specifically, Kenya has ratified the United Na-

tions Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) and the African Charter on the Rights and Wel-fare of the Child (ACRWC, 1999). These international conventions have been domesticated in the Kenyan legislation through the Children’s Act (2001) and the Revised Constitution of Kenya (2010). The Children’s Act promotes a set of rights and services that need to be provided to vulnerable children, and focuses on community and family contexts, however there is not much considering children’s institutionaliza-tion.

Since then, the legislative framework has been re-inforced by on-going reforms within the DCS and the statutory institution system. The three sections model has been piloted in Kenya as part of this re-forms process, beginning with a project named the “Children Community Safety Nets” in 2005. The proj-ect responded to the need for a restructuring of the care programmes offered inside the statutory insti-tutions and a sharing of responsibilities among the institution’s staff. Prior to this intervention, the insti-tutions’ staff work was unstructured with regard to provision of services, such as counselling, and the responsibilities were falling to any staff member available and depended on the circumstances. This resulted in a workload that was often overwhelm-ing. As a result, specialized services like counselling were not provided to the children, while education-al activities were unorganised and dependent on the availability and creativity of each individual staff member. In the same way, reintegration was carried out as repatriation, whereby the child was returned back home without adequate assessment, supervi-sion or follow-up.

The three sections model is now currently utilised in all DCS statutory institutions, where practice has shown that work in small focused manageable teams is more effective for positive results, as op-posed to working as a whole with a non-structured group of professionals.

2.2 DEFINITIONS

Sections: are small manageable groups of staff

27

working within the institutions as per their skills and interests, who help address the children’s issues more effectively and efficiently during their stay and up until their exit. Each section is a team of caregiv-ers with a common understanding of child protec-tion, combined with expertise and commitment to one of the three thematic areas of the model: coun-selling, education and reintegration.

The counselling section: is comprised of staff members that are willing and competent to provide children with individual, group and family counsel-ling sessions. This is a valuable process that enables a child to bring out information about their life, their needs and emotional blocks, and to be offered ap-propriate responses and a way forward.

The education section: consists of staff members who are willing and competent to provide educa-tional relationships by engaging children in activi-ties, which build trust and self-confidence.

The reintegration section: is comprised of staff members who are willing and competent in the process of disengaging children from institutions and reuniting them with their families and commu-nities – regaining a high level of personal and social functionality.

2.3 BEST PRACTICE: THE THREE-SECTION MODEL

Through the creation and implementation of the three thematic sections – counselling, education and reintegration – within statutory institutions, the DCS and its project partners have greatly improved the provision of child-friendly services for institu-tionalized children.

The application of the three sections model has been part of the reforms process that the DCS has been undergoing since 2005, when a first pilot proj-ect was initiated at the Nairobi Children’s Remand Home. In 2008 the Thika Children Rescue Centre and the Dagoretti Rehabilitation School followed. Since then, the programme has been scaled up, reaching national coverage in 2014 with the project “Improv-


ing the Kenya Juvenile Justice System”, which oversaw the extension of the pilot project in all the 28 statu-tory institutions run by the DCS across Kenya. This intervention targeted the existing functions and structures of government-run child protection sys-tems, both at an institutional and field services level. It jointly looked for solutions to increase their effec-tiveness, whilst promoting the best interests of the children, which is ultimately the main objective. To this effect, between 2014-2015, institutions of high-er learning were engaged to provide a certificate of study to all DCS staff working in the institutions regardless of their job position, in order to create a common technical ground and a shared vision on working with children.

Since inception, the scope of this model has been to facilitate compliance with both the DCS National Standards on Statutory Institutions, and the Re-forms Guidelines Manual (2009), by integrating ex-isting activities into the three sections structure.

The three thematic teams work in synergy, sharing information and collaborating before meeting with the institution management, where they collective-ly develop a joint care or treatment plan for each child to responds to their specific needs and situa-tion. The work of the three sections teams and man-agement are very much interrelated, with the child as the main focus throughout the whole structure.

According to the system, the child has to first un-dergo a two-week orientation period during which they are introduced to the institution environment, including the three sections, how they work, whom they can address their requests and needs to, and how each of the sections will help them during their stay. Next the child is introduced to psycho-educational activities that will facilitate them with feeling at ease and welcome within the institution. The child is then assessed through counselling, whilst staff observations are also made. Information is then shared during the institution case confer-ence, in order to set up an individual care plan for the child and to arrange for family tracing and a re-integration strategy.

28

2.3.1 Counselling Section

The counselling section provides individual, group and family counselling to the children in the institu-tions. Each child undergoes assessment by counsel-ling as soon as they enter the institution, in order to collect information about their story and family, and tailor a specific care plan for them. Beyond that, the counselling section aims to:

• Restore a child’s psychological safety whist in the institution by helping them in verbalising and addressing feelings and thoughts associ-ated to trauma.

• Provide children with social skills and coach them on what is socially acceptable in relation-ships with others.

• Develop with the child a short to midterm life plan.

• Support the child’s family through family coun-selling in order for them to reflect upon their child’s current problems and the root causes of their condition, from the perspective of the family dynamics and dysfunctions.

2.3.2 Education Section

The concept of education goes beyond formal aca-demic learning to embrace a variety of educational activities aimed at internalising and practicing life skills, challenging children’s dysfunctional behav-iours and habits, empowering them through par-ticipation, nurturing talents and engaging them in self-control and teamwork through sports. There-fore, the relationship with the staff playing the role of educators is crucial, and it is indeed a vital com-ponent of the transformative education process. The education team plans and coordinates the de-livery of a variety of educational services to children, and will often engage with external stakeholders

2.3.3 Reintegration Section

With the support of the project’s partners, the DCS has been moving from a repatriation model – where

the child is simply dropped back home with no in-tervention at a family or community level – towards a family reintegration process. The process begins the same day the child steps into the institution and continues throughout the child’s stay, utilising the work of the aforementioned sections that provide invaluable information on the child’s status and background. It also works in strong collaboration with the DCS field services, the District Children’s Officers (DCO).

The reintegration section team aims to:

• Assess whether a child wants to establish con-tact with their family, and offers support in order to safeguard the right of the child to parental care and disengage them from the institution.

• Strengthen the care plan for and with the child, and assist children who cannot be reunited with their family with a way forward and appropriate service delivery.

• Arrange for family tracing and reintegration by connecting with the DCS field services.

• Carry out the tracing, actively attend the case conferences and implement reintegration activ-ities in collaboration with the DCS field services.

2.3.4 Three-sections model results and impact

The achieve adequate implementation of the three sections model, about 450 institutions staff were targeted and reached for capacity building, ben-efiting about 2,000 children hosted daily in 28 DCS statutory institutions across Kenya. Three training Certificate packages were offered on counselling, education and reintegration, and reached out to all DCS staff working in statutory institutions. Quite a number of staff had the opportunity to take more than one course reaching the following partici-pants: counselling: 147 staff, education: 310 staff and reintegration 257 staff.

The improvement in staff knowledge and attitude was measured through pre and post-tests within the institution, and the results confirmed an en-

29

hancement of staff technical capacity of up to 40 percent. In the period between February 2014 to December 2015, the following services were pro-vided to children: 3, 397 individual counselling ses-sions, 381 family counselling sessions, 1, 309 educa-tion section’s activities, and 1, 379 family tracings. As a result, 638 children were reintegrated, many through family conferencing

The qualitative results and impact have been as-sessed through on-going monitoring and evalua-tion. It was observed that there was a considerable enhancement in the services provided and an over-all positive impact was documented on the benefi-ciaries’ lives. The results showed a positive change affecting staff-to-child, peer-to-peer and family re-lationships, as well as a nurturing of talents, acquire-ment of new skills and an improvement in child par-ticipation. Furthermore, the governmental staff had been empowered to work as a team, rather than working in isolation, and had an improved inter-nal communication and joint response to children’s needs. Additionally, the professional training re-ceived in counselling, psycho-social education and reintegration, improved their capacity, educational approach and relations with children, as well as per-sonal self-esteem and job performance.


Capacity building has enabled staff to manage and handle children’s issues in a professional manner. As one staff stated: “The three sections model has helped us tremendously to relate with the children, to discov-er their potentials and to empower them”. The model has also built cohesion in the general running of op-erations of the centres at a national level, quicken-ing and mainstreaming case management across all statutory institutions. There has also been a refine-ment and improvement in regard to staff daily du-ties, due to a clearer and well defined distribution of responsibilities among the staff.

The reduced number of escapees from the institu-tions reported in 2015 highlights another positive impact of the project. Children appear to find it easi-er to approach the staff members who are responsi-ble for their care, who are in turn more involved with the children’s concerns and the institution itself. The improved quality of service provides children with an immediate response to their needs, as well as the capacity to plan for themselves – as one child said: “We never idle and we are now given the opportunity to choose for ourselves which kind of life we want”.

Beyond the overall impact, specific improvements have also been identified as a result of the work of each section team.

Results

Counselling Section

Children have become self-aware; Risky and violent behaviours have decreased through promotion of emotional and social competencies;Parents have been empowered on alternativr discipline skills, improving their relationships and responses to difficult behaviours.

Education Section

The life skills children acquire improve their sense of belonging to a commu-nity;Mentored youths have significantly better relationships with parents, and emotional support among peers;Children participation is promoted and encouraged.

Reintegration Section

Commitment to the exit process is encouraged and child relapse prevented;Support in solving conflicts between the child, their family and the community is provided;Institution efficiency in order to de-institutionalize the children is enhanced;Community’s prevention capacity is boosted.

30

2.3.5 Innovation

The three sections model has brought a lot of in-novative changes within the statutory institutions’ system. A crucial change can be seen with the at-titude of the staff and the children themselves –at-tributed to their participation in section activities and information sharing. Furthermore, the institu-tion management has found that there has been an improvement in the planning and coordination of work, as the model has increased interdependency and information sharing amongst the staff, which allows for a more uniform and comprehensive care package. This results in an enhanced self-esteem for both staff and children.

Staff testimonials have confirmed how this new practice has assisted them in developing self-aware-ness and self-esteem, as well as enhancing and ap-preciating their individual skills. The model has given them an opportunity to plan and coordinate activities as a team, perform their tasks more effec-tively and serve the children better. When asked if and how this practice brought innovation into the system, a staff member meaningfully stated: “Now we are so much empowered and we are able to work outside the box in order to serve the children more ef-fectively”.

A statement reflected in a child’s statement: “Before this project, we were not doing a lot in the institution,

apart from performing the daily chores. But since the project started we are making soaps, we are being counselled both by our staffs at the institutions and other counsellors from the community and other part-ners”.

2.3.6 Constraints

The initial constraints encountered in the setting up and strengthening of the three sections model are mainly related to inadequate resourcing, both in terms of staffing and allocated budget. Inadequate human resources to meet the needs of each child is the most recurrent problem attested by the staff when asked about the constraints they encounter. In some institutions, the number of staff for each section is inadequate compared to the number of children, especially within Remand Homes. Further-more, despite capacity building efforts, there are some institutions where staff members have not fully embraced the model, resulting in a low im-pact of the entire project. However, it is understood that change in attitude takes time and it is crucially linked to the active availability and participation of all management, staff, caregivers, parents and com-munity members.

Going into details, the institutions’ staff members underlined the following main constraints for each section:

Constraints

Counselling Section

Resistance of some children to embrace the concept of counselling, due to fear or lack of knowledge;Overlapping of functions and responsibilities. Being the counsellors as well as the staff on duty brings issues of trust and efficiency. Building trust in the counselling process is hindered when the counsellor is also responsible for the discipline of the child.Inadequate supervision and debriefing for thecounsellors, which easily leads to burn-out;Inadequate structural referral systems for further specialized counselling support for particularly vulnerable children.

Education Section Lack of funds for structures, adequate spaces and equipment.

31


Inadequate budgeting and coordination with field services hinders vital follow up and after care release procedures;Resistance of some families to reconnect with their children and visit the institution.

2.3.7 Lessons learned

There have been some important lessons learnt throughout this project, which may help towards making the practice more efficient, sustainable and replicable in similar contexts:

1. The training of staff needs to be implemented at the establishment of each section, and it should be completed simultaneously. A late start in the training can demotivate some staff and create the belief that one section is more relevant than another;

2. The staff should be able to choose the section/s that they are interested in and feel most com-petent in;

3. Continuous supervision, debriefing and per-sonal therapy for counselling staff needs to be a priority;

4. A clear and fixed distinction of roles and duties among the staff needs to be established to al-low for transparent relationships to develop between staff and children, and to also avoid burnout. Therefore, it is a requirement of the DCS to hire new specialised personnel – includ-ing professional counsellors, educators and so-cial workers;

5. It is crucial that there are proper communica-tion channels, and that staff collaboration and the sharing of information is encouraged across the three sections;

6. It is important that adequate information is giv-en to the children regarding the functions of the three sections and staff members, and that par-ticipation is regular to guarantee real engage-

ment and to prevent resistance;

7. Before implementing any practice involving a child, it is important to remember the individu-ality of each case. This has been reflected by the staff at the Eldoret Remand Home: “Each child is unique with unique characteristics and needs, requiring solutions tailored within his/her unique-ness”.

2.4 THREE-SECTION MODEL GUIDELINES

The three sections model has been scaled up since 2005, guaranteeing sustainability and ownership by the DCS and the statutory institutions management. Replication of the model across Remand Homes, Re-habilitation Schools, Reception and Rescue Centres is possible despite their very diverse categorisation. Since the model responds to the basic functions of any care/custody institutions (counselling, educa-tion and exit) it is possible to replicate the model in other geographical and cultural settings as well.

The guidelines presented here are based on the assumption that the institution’s staff are involved from the first step of the model’s implementation. Through engaging with the whole process, staff members are able to embrace the value of each sec-tion and appreciate the interconnected work of the three teams. This guarantees that the best interest of the child is protected throughout their staying in the institution and during the reintegration process.

2.4.1 Steps to implement the best practice

The establishment and strengthening of the three sections was achieved through initially engaging the DCS head office. The initial pilot years of the intervention were crucial for the DCS to achieve ownership and assess the effectiveness and impact

32

of the model. A national technical team was estab-lished by the DCS to oversee the implementation of the whole project. This was very instrumental in identifying the modalities of intervention and the training packages required for capacity building.

The methodology used at an institutional level was to engage as much as possible with the institutions’ management. To this end, the management team was therefore responsible for selecting the govern-ment staff to join the three teams and for their co-ordination and supervision. Capacity building was achieved through training programmes on counsel-ling, psycho-education and reintegration.

In the initial stage, the project’s external staff were seconded to the institutions, and supported the government staff by working side by side through direct implementation of activities. Team building was carried out in each institution, which eased the resolution of conflicts amongst the staff and the communication flow with project personnel, es-pecially for activities needed to be coordinated by management in conjunction with all actors. Gradu-ating from the pilot stage, the project external staff shifted their role from implementation to the moni-toring of activities to assure future sustainability. Therefore, the government staff were progressively trained to achieve autonomy.

Steps to be undertaken to implement this model can be identified as follows:

1. The government body in charge of children care/custody institutions is brought on board and a pilot phase is agreed upon to be carried out in few selected institutions;

2. The three sections are presented in the selected institution through an initial induction work-shop, whereby the concept of team work is in-troduced and its relevance explained;

3. Under the coordination of the institution man-agement, staff members are to choose which section they feel they are most comfortable to join;

4. Each section appoints a section head and a sec-retary who convene meetings (usually once a month), coordinate the activities planned and collect the documentation;

5. Staff undergo capacity building through train-ing that is related to their chosen section;

6. Section meetings are scheduled monthly in or-der to lay down schedules of duties and to coor-dinate the activities;

7. Activities from the three sections are imple-mented under the supervision and coordina-tion of the institution management who plays a fundamental role in ensuring good team work, communication and an adequate work distribu-tion;

8. Data is collected in line with agreed indicators to measure the sections work and impact;

9. The three sections work collaboratively through the case conference meeting where cases are discussed and common activities decided upon that address the identified needs of the chil-dren;

10. The National Agency in charge of the care/cus-tody institutions management (DCS) receives regular reports regarding overall supervision.

Concerning the reintegration section, the connec-tion between the institution, field services (DCS) and the Probation Department is crucial, especially where probation officers and field children officers carry out home/school visits and make reports and recommendations to the court. Also, the Police will act as a great source of information as they are the child’s entry point into the justice system and may hold important evidence needed for the child’s as-sessment. Furthermore, an effective interagency co-operation ensures that activities are not duplicated and that all the information collected is utilised in a consistent and uniform way – again ensuring that the best interests of the child are advocated.

33


In addition, through networking, the education sec-tion engages with other agencies, development partners and other organisations providing services to children. Coordination meetings enable the insti-tution’s management to create synergy with these partners by formulating educational themes and proposing harmonised activities within the institu-tion.

2.4.2 Success factors and sustainability

Since the inception and adoption of the three sec-tions model there has been a remarkable change in both the staff and children of the statutory insti-tutions. Some key success factors and recommen-dations are listed below, which clearly identify the conditions necessary for this model to be success-fully replicated and/or extended.

Success factorsDedicated and informed government staff to implement the activities.

Flexibility due to the nature of work in the institutions.

An informed and periodic evaluation of the activities.

Strong leadership by the institution’s manager in regard to supervision and planning, through holding a monthly coordination/management meeting with the section heads. Conducive relationships between the institution and the stakeholders.

Team and motivation building among the staff and with actors involved.

Trust building between staff and children.

Recommendations for sustainability

Strong trust between the staff working in rehabilitation programmes and the children. Once a bond is established, children become receptive to the initiatives staff propose and staff also become aware of their needs, responding pro-actively.

Strong leadership by the institution’s manager in regard to supervision and planning.

Building a safe, secure and well functioning custodial setting and child-friendly environment. Minimal care/custody standards and practices must be the starting point for building an effective care/rehabilita-tion programme.Increased government investment in children institutions though increased financial resources and the hir-ing of specialised personnel – including professional counsellors, educators and social workers. Investment is also granted towards the refurbishment of infrastructures (counselling rooms, adequate spaces and equipment for the education section).

Ownership of the three sections model both by the national agency in charge of the care/custody institu-tions (DCS) and the institutions management and staff.

34

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

The DCS statutory institutions framework has estab-lished the three sections model – i.e. counselling, education and reintegration – across 28 children statutory institutions. This result has been achieved with the support of development project partners. A key objective is to facilitate compliance with the DCS National Standards and the DCS Reform Pro-gram Guidelines (2009).

The three sections model integrates existing activi-ties in the centres under the supervision and coor-dination of the institution’s management. The three sections all operate simultaneously with each other through their respective teams, and activities are designed in a way that each independent section builds onto the other. Through this model, a child is taken from admission to exit via activities designed to facilitate their personal wellbeing and develop-ment within the institution. The child undergoes thorough assessment through counselling sessions that aim to bring out information, needs or emo-tional blocks. Both formal and informal education activities support the child’s growth and prepare them for reintegration.

The institution’s staff are trained to operate as child counsellors, and the educators share the child’s as-sessment results during the case conference. The conference also arranges for family tracing by the reintegration team who work in collaboration with the field services (DCS) and the Probation Depart-ment. Through this model, the best interests of the child are assured through the provision of adequate services, while the institution’s staff learn how to work as a team, thus curtailing challenges faced due to limited human and financial resources.

35

CHAPTER THREE

The Case Management ProcessAuthors

Julia Wangari – County Coordinator Coast region

Daniel Kagwi – Child Protection & Youth Development Professional

Organization: The European Committee for Training and Agriculture (CEFA)

Abstract

“Case Management is the process of assisting an individual child (and their family) through direct support and referral to other needed services, and the activities that case workers, social workers or other staff carry out in working with children and families in addressing protection concerns”. (Save the Children, 2011, p.4)

In this chapter, the focus is on the case management model as it has been carried out across three catego-ries of statutory children institutions, namely Remand Homes, Rehabilitation Schools and Rescue Centres during the Juvenile Justice project implementation.

At the project inception, case management was a fragmented approach with inadequate focus on children’s individual and family needs, however it soon developed to ensure that a child’s needs were prioritised. This occurred through an established process that addressed concerns systematically and in consideration of

36

the best interests of the child – building upon the child and their family’s natural resilience. Case man-agement has improved the coordination of services within an interlinked system by working with staff teams rather than a single key worker – referred to as a caseworker or case manager. Teamwork has en-sured that decisions are made with the best inter-ests of the child in mind and that the case is man-aged in accordance with the established process by engaging all actors. However, overall coordination is still entrusted to one responsible caseworker who is accountable to the government formal systems.

Key words

Case management, assessment, case plan, case con-ference


The programme has been led by CESVI, in part-nership with the Department of Children Services (DCS), the Probation and Aftercare Services depart-ment, CEFA, the Kenyan Magistrate and Judges Association and Kenyan NGOs, including Legal Resource Foundation, the Child Welfare Society of Kenya and Watoto Ciao Trust. The target population was comprised of children and staff in 28 institu-tions across Kenya, reaching around 2,000 children daily and 450 governmental staff who received re-lated training.


Around the world, hundreds of thousands of girls and boys are not raised with their own families, but under the care of the justice system. The institu-tions hosting them may be orphanages, children’s homes, care homes, prisons, juvenile detention fa-cilities, and reform schools etc. They may be open or closed (i.e. where children are locked in), and may be run by governments, private companies or individuals, or by non-governmental or faith-based organisations. Many are large-scale, and children may live there for prolonged periods of their lives. Despite differences, all these institutions govern the

day-to-day lives, personal development and future of a substantial number of children. Although they are established to provide care, guidance, support and protection to children, the hosted children can often be at an increased risk of violence compared to children under family care. Reports from many countries across the world show that institution-alised children are often subjected to violence by the staff responsible for their well being and also by their peers.

Institutionalisation can be a violent condition at times, which is exacerbated when children are housed with adult inmates or older children who can perpetrate and perpetuate physical and sexu-al victimisation. The impact of institutionalisation goes beyond the immediate exposure of children to violence, and long-term effects can include: severe developmental delays, disability, irreversible psy-chological damage and increased rates of suicide and criminal activity. The United Nations Conven-tion on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, Article 3, Paragraph 1) reiterates that: “In all actions concern-ing children… the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.

3.2 DEFINITIONS

Case management: is a collaborative process of assessment, planning, implementation, care coor-dination, evaluation, and advocacy in regard to op-tions and services which aim to meet an individual child and their family’s needs. These needs are met through structured interventions and the utilisation of available resources. In the 28 children statutory institutions of Kenya, case management can be de-fined as the sum of all activities that the institution engages in to assist the child’s development, includ-ing the building of a care plan aimed at family rein-tegration.

Case managers: are the staff entrusted with imple-menting the case management process. They keep the child informed about their care plan, family situ-ation and siblings. They also facilitate a child’s visits by their parents, siblings and significant persons,

37

preparing the child for any life transitions. Case managers ensure through observation and direct inquiry that all of a child’s basic needs are identified, and arrange for any specially required services. They ensure that the proper and standard documenta-tion for a child is prepared in line with the agreed upon timelines.

Referral is the process of formally requesting ad-ditional services for a child or their family from an-other agency (e.g. cash assistance, health care etc.) through an established procedure; case managers do however maintain overall responsibility for the case regardless of referrals.

Risk assessment is the process that determines the nature and extent of risk factors faced by the child. It takes into account the potential hazards and exist-ing conditions of vulnerability that together could harm the child and their family. Risk assessments should also take into account resiliency, a personal and community’s capacity to resist or recover from the hazard’s impact.

3.3 BEST PRACTICE: THE CASE MANAGEMENT MODEL

In statutory children institutions, the general case management guidelines are followed with some specific adjustments in respect to different institu-tions categories and their specific mandates (e.g. Remand Homes, Rehabilitation Schools and Rescue Centres). Generally, case management steps are followed with some flexibility, although practice shows that when the basic principles are applied, children’s cases are resolved faster and the case management team in the institution can deal with more children.

3.3.1 case management steps in remand homes

1. Identification and registration

Once the child arrives – often accompanied by a po-lice officer or an officer from the court – the respon-sible institution staff members receives the child


and related documentation. During admission, the child is provided with information, and where pos-sible, the parents and guardians are informed. A newly admitted child undergoes a physical exami-nation, while clothes and belongings are removed and stored to ensure safety and hygiene. The physi-cal examination is to be carried out by a staff mem-ber of the same gender as the child.

The staff member will then carefully explain to the child the reason for their institutionalisation and will provide any necessary information relevant to their stay in an effort to help the child feel safe and secure. A newly admitted child also receives orien-tation and guidance in order to understand the reg-ulations governing the institution, the disciplinary requirements and procedures and any authorised methods of making complaints.

2. Assessment

A thorough assessment is conducted to analyse the child’s history, previous environment, characteris-tics and personality, and in order to devise the best plan for their care and rehabilitation. The process of assessment, investigation and diagnosis is based on the knowledge and expertise of medical and behav-ioural sciences. The assessment conducted explores the following items:

• Family and other significant persons who can provide care and assistance for the child.

• Life history, academic history and/or employ-ment history.

• Physical and mental condition.

• History of behavioural problems and the crime leading to arrest and committal.

• Observation after admission.

• Other relevant matters.

Assessment is conducted by soliciting information from the Children’s Officer or other relevant offi-cials. If necessary, information is sought from local governmental offices, the police, school officials

38

and other relevant agencies. Information concern-ing the children at the Remand Home is shared with other relevant officials in order to determine the most appropriate recommendation for every indi-vidual child.

The assessment result is then sent to the receiving children’s officer or probation officer so that the court can utilise it for the hearing. The assessment result is recorded in the child’s case file.

3. Case planning

Case planning is conducted as part of the case con-ference that is attended by institution staff work-ing collaboratively in order to define a suitable In-dividual Care Plan (ICP) for the child. Contributions and insights towards the development of the case are made by members from all of the three sections: counselling, education and reintegration.

4. Implementing the case plan

Members from each of the three sections work on their specific part of the case plan, whilst the case conference is used to report on progress and to discuss any further directions or actions required. On release, the child has to be accompanied by the institution staff to an appropriate destination as per the court order.The manager organises the transfer and/or release to the child connecting with the re-ceiving officers in the field. Usually a family meeting or a family conference is organized to establish to reunite the child with his family.

5. Follow-up and review

Once a child has been reintegrated, with the aid of their receiving Children or Probation Officer, the follow-up plan and duration of the aftercare is set in order to continue monitoring the child’s progress with regard to wellbeing, safety and per-manence.

6. Case closure

Most often cases are closed when the goals of the child and family, as outlined in the case plan, have been met, the child is safe from harm, their care and well-being is being supported, and there are no ad-ditional concerns.

3.3.2 Case management steps in Rescue Centres


In Rescue Centres, registration is normally a con-tinuation of the documentation carried out at an earlier stage of the justice system, often at a Police station or Remand Home.

2. Assessment

The child will be placed under observation during their daily activities and counselling is conducted with the aim of assessing the child’s needs and the family background in preparation for reintegration. The case conference is a useful tool here for assess-ment and case planning.

3. Case planning

The case conference is the main tool used to guide the case planning of each individual child. During this stage, developmental needs, including protec-tion and education are devised and provided.


During case implementation, the staff members of the three sections are all involved in supporting the child’s care and rehabilitation. While making sure the child’s life inside the institution is meeting their best interests, the staff in charge of case manage-ment implements the reintegration in collaboration with the field services (DCS), the child’s family and the community.

39

5. Case closure

The ICP is closed in coordination with the receiving officer once the child has successfully exited from the institution.

3.3.3 Case management steps in Reception Centres

1. Identification and Registration

Children coming into Reception Centres have usu-ally exited from Remand Homes. They arrive with their documentation from the Remand Home or police station. At the Reception Centres the children are subjected to further rigorous assessment lead-ing to their classification.

2. Assessment

The assessment in the receptions centres is support-ed by the use of an assessment tool and the case conference. This tool focuses on nine specific areas: 1) prior or current offences/disposition; 2) family cir-cumstances/parenting; 3) education/employment; 4) peer relations; 5) substance abuse; 6) leisure/rec-reation; 7) street experience; 8) personality.

Once this assessment is completed, the children are classified according to their risk level and are sent to the appropriate Rehabilitation School; i.e. high risk, medium risk and low risk. The case conference is an extremely useful tool in finalising this assessment.

3. Case planning.

For case planning in Reception Centres, the case conference is a vital tool, and – due to the specific mandate of the institution – the only planning to be conducted is in order to determine the category of Rehabilitation School where the child will be sent.


Children are transferred to the suitable institution identified for their specific needs.



There is no need for follow-up or review.

6. Case closure

Cases are closed once the child has been transferred to the respective Rehabilitation School.

3.3.4 Case management steps in Rehabilitation Schools


In Rehabilitation Schools, the registration is simply a follow up of the documentation received from the reception centre.

2. Assessment

The assessment at the Rehabilitation School builds on the assessment conducted at the reception cen-tre. The Rehabilitation School team is then tasked with continuing the assessment and establishing an ICP for the child. Staff members from different sec-tions – i.e. counselling, reintegration and education – all contribute to the assessment process during the case conference. Probation and children officers are required to produce an environmental assess-ment of the child’s family and prepare for their re-integration.

3. Case planning

During the case planning stage, the case conference is used to draft the ICP and to review cases. The chil-dren’s ICP includes a care/rehabilitation plan to ad-dress various aspects of protection or behavioural modification. In addition, children in Rehabilitation Schools have the opportunity to join formal educa-tion and vocational training schemes.


The implementation of the case plan is central to all activities and work undertaken with the children in the rehabilitation school until final release to the

40

family of origin through a family meeting of a fam-ily conference. Constant review of each ICP is ex-tremely important.


Once a child has been reintegrated, with the aid of their receiving Children or Probation Officer, the follow-up plan and duration of the aftercare is set in order to continue monitoring of the child’s progress.

6. Case closure

Once the aftercare period is concluded and the child has been confirmed as safe at home and showing stability, the case is closed.

3.4 CASE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

3.4.1 Case management steps

The steps for case management in the statutory in-stitutions are:


At this primary stage, children are admitted into the institution. Each child is given an orientation on the centre and its rules, and on the general duties to be carried out. During this phase the child is in-troduced to the institution staff members and other children.

2. Assessment

Assessment has to be individualised as each case is unique. Children are different because of diverse social background, issues and personality traits. Thus, every child needs to be assessed independently as treatment must respond to each individual need. Risk assessment examines the seriousness/gravity of harm experienced and the probability or likelihood of such behaviour continuing. An assessment generally focuses on:

a. Identifying the child’s risk/need factors;b. Making supervision/treatment/care decisions;c. Making case management decisions;

d. Providing information for a continuum of services.

During the assessment stage the child is exposed to various activities that are aimed at getting an ac-curate understanding of the child’s family life, the environment and conditions that precipitated the child’s exit from home. This assessment includes a variety of activities, for example home tracings and individual, group and family counselling. The as-sessment is the first step leading to the formation of the individual care or treatment plan (ICP/ITP). A care plan responds to the needs of children in need of care and protection while a treatment plan is de-signed for children in conflict with the law.

3. Case planning

Case planning needs to be objective to ensure that the best decisions are made concerning the case of the child, and that the unique circumstances encountered by that child are taken in consider-ation. An essential part of case planning is the case conference, a vital tool where various stakeholders come together to discuss the case. Case planning should result in the finalisation of an ICP or ITP, the master plan that outlines and defines the course of any interventions on children. It is a comprehensive and holistic plan that delineates the goals, objec-tives, resources and main ‘players’ of the care and treatment process.

4. Implementing the case plan.

The ITP/ICP is implemented in line with its detailed steps to move the case forward towards a resolu-tion. The case manager and other stakeholders fol-low through with the required actions, including the child’s reintegration back to the family. In this phase the child’s family and its support network are involved as much as possible through family meet-ing and a final family conference.


The case is handed over to a field children or pro-bation officer who is responsible for monitoring the

41

child wellbeing, safety and permanence for a dura-tion related to the risk level of the child. This is done through aftercare procedures conducted through the contact persons identified during the family conference, home visits and telephone calls. Addi-tional services may be provided when needed.


6. Case closure.

Once the aftercare monitoring confirms the child wellbeing, safety and stability, the case is closed.

Diagram 1: Case Management Flow

1. Identify and register vulnerable children, and raise

awareness among affected communities

2. Assess the individual needs of children and their

families

3. Develop an individual care/treatment plan for each child based on assessment.

Include time-bound, measurable objectives

4. Care plan implementation, including direct support, referral and reintegration

through family conferencing


6. Case Closed

42

3.4.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CASE MANAGEMENT

1. Do no harm

This means ensuring that actions and interventions designed to support the child and their family do not expose them to further harm. At each step of the case management process, care must be taken to ensure that no harm comes to children or their families as a result of caseworker’s conduct, deci-sions, or actions taken on the child’s behalf. Caution should also be taken to ensure that no harm comes to children or families as a result of collecting, stor-ing or sharing their personal information.

2. Prioritise the best interests of the child

A child’s best interests include their physical and emotional safety, i.e. their wellbeing, as well as their right to positive development. In line with Article 3 of the UNCRC, the best interests of the child should provide the basis for all decisions and actions taken, including the way in which service providers inter-act with children and their families. Caseworkers and their supervisors must constantly evaluate the risks and resources of the child and his environment, as well as the positive and negative consequences of actions taken. This must then be discussed with the child and their caregivers when making further de-cisions. The least harmful course of action is always the preferential one.

3. Non-discrimination

Adhering to the non-discrimination principle means ensuring that children are not discriminated due to their individual characteristics, gender, age, socio-economic background, race, religion, ethnicity, dis-ability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

4. Adhere to ethical standards

For agencies and staff working with children, pro-fessional ethical standards and practices should be applied. These may be professional codes of con-

duct and child protection policies, in line with inter-national norms and national laws.

5. Seek informed consent and/or informed assent

Informed consent is the voluntary agreement of an individual who has the capacity to give consent, and the right to make free and informed choices. In all circumstances, consent should be sought from children and their families or caregivers prior to pro-viding services. To ensure informed consent, case-workers must ensure that children and their families fully understand the services and options available, the case management process, potential risks and benefits to receiving services, what information will be collected and how it will be used, and the terms of confidentiality and its limits. Caseworkers are re-sponsible for communicating this information in a child-friendly manner and should encourage the child and their family to ask questions that will help them to make an informed decision regarding their own situation.

6. Respect confidentiality

Confidentiality is linked to the sharing of informa-tion on a need-to-know basis. The term “need-to-know” refers to the limiting of information that is considered sensitive, and sharing it only with those individuals who require the information in order to protect the child. Sensitive and identifying informa-tion that is collected on a child should be shared with as few individuals as possible. Respecting con-fidentiality requires service providers to protect in-formation gathered about clients and to ensure it is accessible only with a client’s explicit permission. For agencies and caseworkers involved in case man-agement, this means collecting, keeping, sharing and storing information on individual cases in a safe way and according to agreed upon data protection policies.

43

7. Ensure accountability

Accountability refers to one being held responsible for one’s own actions and for the results of those ac-tions. Agencies and staff involved in case manage-ment are accountable to the child, the family, and the community. Agencies and individuals providing case management must comply with the national legal and policy framework. They will also have to comply with professional codes of conduct where these exist.

3.4.3 Case management replication

Case management replication requires clear under-standing and subdivision of roles and responsibili-ties of the various actors involved. They are distrib-uted as following:

1) The institution manager: responsible for regis-tration and orientation of the child to the insti-tution. In regard to Remand Homes the man-ager should ensure that the child is presented for court sessions as per the court requirements. The manager should also make sure that all child cases are handled in the best way possible. Management should also make sure that all oth-er aspects of child welfare are attended, includ-ing health, hygiene, shelter, and nutrition etc.

2) The counsellor: responsible for undertaking a psychological assessment of the child through holding individual, group and family counsel-ling sessions. The counsellor is also responsible for monitoring the child’s emotional develop-ment, the child’s resilience and life coping strat-egies.

3) The reintegration section: reintegration staff in collaboration with children or probation field officers are responsible for carrying out home tracing and home/environmental assessment, as well as completing environmental adjust-ment reports. Furthermore they must liaise with family members in order to attain as much infor-mation available about the child.


4) The education section: staff members are respon-sible for the daily handling of the child whilst in the institution, including the development of a child’s life skills along with other developmental needs.


The basic stages of case management require mini-mal resources and are therefore easy to replicate and sustain. Nevertheless, it is paramount that the staff members have ownership over the process and that they see the benefit of the activities in regard to the best interests of the child. In terms of rein-tegration and aftercare steps – including the home assessment and family visits – sustainability how-ever can become quite difficult due to limited hu-man and financial resources. Documentation is also an important component of the case management process since all cases receive a fair share of atten-tion and the records are useful for case tracking and for case referrals when necessary. The case confer-ence is the key meeting tool around which a suc-cessful case management system can be anchored within statutory institutions.

3.5 CONCLUSION

Case management has been developed in order to deal with children’s cases in a manner that en-sures individualised professional attention is given to each case, which guarantees that decisions or actions are made in the best interest of the child. Inadequate case management is a form of severe neglect due to the heavy consequences it brings to the child’s life. Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 19 of the UNCRC articulates that it is the responsibility of every state party to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, including neglect. Case management can be an effective tool to help children regain con-fidence and control of their own future. When steps of case management are properly followed, occur-rences of violence can be drastically reduced.

44

CHAPTER FOUR

The Reintegration ProcessAuthors

Alice Njeri Ngugi - Regional Counselling coordinator Ignatius Kitwe - County coordinator Lower Rift Valley region. Julia Wangare - County coordinator Coast region.Daniel Kagwi – Assistant project managerOrganization: The European Committee for Training and Agriculture (CEFA)

Abstract

Repatriation of children from custody in Statutory Institutions back to their homes has a long history dat-ing back to the colonial era of Kenyan history. In today’s context, whilst repatriation is still in the legal framework, it has become inapplicable due to the enormous changes that Kenyan society has undergone. This refers to a change in the perception of children as rights holders, including their rights to protection and to belong and live in a family and community environment.

The reintegration model presented in this paper was introduced into the Kenyan justice system back in 2005 as a response to the need for an effective reintegration process for children and their families. It

45

began with one Statutory Institution and by 2014 it had expanded to all 28 Department of Children Ser-vices’ (DCS) Statutory Institutions. The model bor-rows from both the case management procedures and the family conferencing methodology in an ef-fort to combine the two in a unique and effective strategy to achieve successful family reintegration. Children belong with their families and are a part of a wider community, therefore a lot of work has to be done in collaboration with this wider network. This is usually attempted via a strength-based ap-proach through which concerning adults are given an opportunity to conceive workable resolutions for their kids. This is a great departure from the tra-ditional repatriation practice that saw families and communities deprived of their roles, responsibilities and chance for participation.

Location

Reintegration was first implemnted in Nairobi’s Children Remand Home in 2005. Since then it has been extended to all Statutory Children Institu-tions in the country, including Remand Homes in Likoni, Kakamega, Kisumu, Manga, Nakuru, Eldoret, Nairobi, Kiambu, Nyeri, Malindi, Murang’a, Kericho; Rescue Centres in Nairobi, Machakos, Thika, Garissa; Rehabilitation Schools in Kabete, Dagoretti, Kirigiti, Othaya, Wamumu, Likoni, Kakamega, Kericho; and Reception Centres in Getathuru and Kirigiti.


The Department of Children Services (DCS) is the main partner engaged in the implementation of this reintegration model through both institutions and field services personnel. Other key partners in its implementation include the Probation and After Care Services and the Child Welfare Society of Kenya (CWSK).

The target group was composed of about 900 chil-dren hosted across all statutory institutions



During the project implementation, at least 70 per-cent of cases found in Remand Homes were of chil-dren placed there for care and protection. Children are committed to the Remand Homes mostly due to petty offences such as stealing, break in, assault and drug peddling; but also for status offences such as truancy or vagrancy. Few are held for capital offenc-es charges such as robbery with violence or murder. Others are witnesses or victims of violence, includ-ing early marriage, incest, and defilement amongst others. Often the causes of such behavioural issues are rooted in dysfunctional families, poverty, severe neglect, abusive step-parents, family violence, and parental alcoholism.

There are three categories of institutions assigned in dealing with child reintegration:

1. Remand Homes

Children Remand Homes are established under sec-tion 50 of the Children Act (2001) for the detention of children. The 5th schedule, sub-section 10 (1) states that children who have not been released on bail shall be remanded at a children’s Remand Home in line with section 57 of the act. Therefore, Remand Homes admit child offenders of both sexes, aged between 10 and 17 years, and whose cases are being processed by the courts. For rescue purposes only, the institution admits children in need of care and protection that are aged between 6 and 17 years and who are in transit to other rescue institu-tions, or are due for family reintegration.

For children to be released under a court order, Re-mand Homes must undertake the responsibility of tracing and reintegrating them back to their fami-lies. Others are transferred to Reception Centres for assessment before being moved to Rehabilitation Schools. Due to the need to decongest the already overcrowded institutions and to avoid overstaying beyond the maximum limit for duration in custody – which is three months, unless held for capital of-fences charges – the process of tracing and reinte-

46

gration is often done inadequately. Furthermore, inadequate human and financial resources for fam-ily tracing and reintegration are also cited as a main challenge. Thus, children are taken back to possibly dysfunctional or abusive environments without any relevant interventions implemented to address the root cause of their issues or offence, resulting in the child perpetuating a cycle of relapse back into the justice system – a cycle that can also continue on in adult life with more serious consequences.

2. Rehabilitation Schools

Rehabilitation Schools are established under Sec-tion 47 of the Children’s Act (2001) in order to pro-vide rehabilitation services to children who have been in conflict with the law. According to the DCS reforms document (2009), such schools are meant to provide a child in conflict with the law with the capacity to achieve behavioural change whilst si-multaneously realising intellectual, social, moral and economic obligations. Section 53 makes provi-sion for the duration of a child’s stay to last up to three years. At times, cases have been recorded of children being placed into these institutions by par-ents who feel their children are difficult to manage, or in an attempt to delegate their upbringing to the state. Also, many Rehabilitation Schools are not in a position to carry out adequate reintegration, which requires family assessment, home visits and tailored preparation plans due to inadequate resources for family tracing and an insufficient connection with DCS field services or the Probation Department.

3. Rescue Centres

The mandate of Rescue Centres is to temporarily provide safety, protection and care to children in need, as well as to facilitate a timely referral and the family/community reintegration process. A place-ment within a Rescue Centre should not exceed three years, except in very unique cases. However, centres are still quite far from achieving this tar-get, mostly due to the same reasons mentioned for other institutions (lack of funds and resources etc.). Attention also needs to be given specifically

to children with cognitive impairment who are lost or abandoned, and whose families cannot be traced due to the child’s inability to provide information. These children can be stuck within the system in-definitely.

4.2 DEFINITIONS

Reintegration is the process in which children are disengaged from institutions and reunited with their families and communities. This is achieved through interventions, and tailored programmes and services that are designed to assist a child settle back into their family life and community through networking with all relevant stakeholders. The rein-tegration process starts at the time of a child’s in-take, and continues on after their physical release until their safety, permanency and well-being are confirmed.

Repatriation is a one-time activity that occurs when a child is returned home with no environmen-tal and/or family assessment. This intervention has minimal family involvement in regard to addressing to the child’s needs.

An exit strategy is a systematic and detailed plan describing how each child is exited from the institu-tion. It commences upon the admission of a child to an institution and terminates at when reintegration to the community has been successfully achieved.

The Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) con-ference is a process that actively seeks the engage-ment of a child’s family and significant others in crafting and implementing plans that support their safety, permanency and well-being after reintegra-tion. It recognises the importance of involving fam-ily members and significant others, as well as the child themselves, in the decision-making process that aims to identify and implement a reintegration plan to provide the child with a safe and stable envi-ronment after release.

Aftercare services refers to the continuous deliv-erance of care services that is provided to a reinte-

47

grated child and their families during the transition-al adjustment period from the institution back into the community.

4.3 BEST PRACTICE: THE REINTEGRATION PROCESS

4.3.1 Reintegration goals

Safety

The child’s protection and safety is paramount to the reintegration programme. All the activities must address the safety within the family and community.

Permanency

The reintegration preparation is supposed to achieve the permanent retention of the child within the family environment. Thus, all reintegration ac-tivities have to address the factors that affect the child’s stability at their home.

Well-being

This is realised when there is an assured provision of basic services – for example shelter, nutrition, health and education – for the child. Follow up and aftercare by the concerned parties is to monitor and further support the child and family in achieving the child’s well-being.

4.3.2 Leading principles

The reintegration process needs to be anchored in the UN Charter of the Right of the Child. In particu-lar it has to be:

1. Child-centred: the child should participate in the decision-making process. Furthermore, all care interventions should be planned and im-plemented to address the particular issues of a specific child’s life – no child shares the exact same experience.


2. Family-centred: the family is the core of safety and protection, therefore the safety, perma-nency and well-being of a child can be assured through family and community participation in all planning and decision-making. Families, being the experts on themselves, are central in discovering the root of a child’s problem and its possible solution. Families have under-used strengths and resources to solve problems for their children. Furthermore, a child belongs to the whole community, and local communities can retain a traditional ownership over a child, which is also to be validated by utilising their under-used strengths and resources.

3. Collective decision-making: decision-making that is shared among stakeholders and values the strengths and capacity of a child, their fam-ily and community.

4. Community-based: through networking with community-based support structures, the in-stitution needs to connect the child and their family with community leaders and service pro-viders, who are able to support the child care services that the family needs.

4.3.3 Five pillars of the reintegration process

Since reintegration is a process and not a one-time event, various actors and stakeholders are involved in its implementation as shown by Diagram 1:

48

Diagram 1: Actors of the reintegration process

FAMILY INSTITUTION CHILD

GOVERNMENTFIELD

COMMUNITY

Child: The child is the key beneficiary of the reha-bilitation and reintegration practice. The child is the key link between the institution and the family, and without the child’s involvement and participation, the success of reintegration is not guaranteed.

Family: The child has their identity and communal belonging vested in their family. Planning and im-plementation for their placement back to into their family home through reintegration is the core task of the family.

Institution: This is the childcare provider who has temporary and periodic custody of the child, and is tasked with the responsibility to ensure that the child is provided for with care and protection. Their mandate is to ensure a child’s successful reintegra-tion back to their family and /or community.

Government field services: These services are an integral component during family tracing, home visits, family conferencing and aftercare procedures, and have the necessary mechanisms and structures

needed to implement the final part of the reintegra-tion process and aftercare.

Community: the community hosts the family, gov-ernment and all other child service providers, and has the required dynamics and resources needed to support a child and their family.

4.3.4 The reintegration process

The reintegration process begins as soon as a child enters into the institution. At both rescue centres and remand homes, the staff complete admission books and case record sheets in order to ascertain as much information as possible from and about the child. In regard to rehabilitation schools, it is impor-tant that staff gather all the necessary documenta-tion and information brought with the child from the reception centres. It is also critical to connect with the committing officer in order to engage with the family for reintegration at the end of the com-mittal period.

49

In line with case management procedures, the rein-tegration process can apply the following steps:

1. Child’s identification and registration: the rein-tegration process starts here;

2. Assessment: interviews, counselling, social enquiry, environmental report and best interest determination;

3. Case planning: case conference, individual care plan;

4. Implementing the case plan: from family trac-ing to actual reintegration;

5. Aftercare: follow-up and review;

6. Case closure.

Preparation for a child’s reintegration needs to en-gage with the three main actors in the process – namely the child, the family and the institutional services. The following list highlights key activities for all:

1. Preparation of the child

Key activities:

• Interviews• Counselling• Assessments: psychological, educational, medi-

cal etc.• Individual treatment/care plan (ITP/ICP)• Tracing • Provision of services according to identified

needs• Family reunification• Aftercare and follow up

2. Preparation of the family & community

Key activities:

• Assessments• Counselling/therapy and other child-focused

interventions• Mobilization of different stakeholders for family

conference• Networking for needed community-based re-

sources


3. Preparation of the institution management and the receiving officer

Key activities:

• Preparation of relevant documentation; • Case conference ;• Networking between institution management

and receiving officer for tracing and field prepa-ration;

• Networking with community based resources;

4.3.5 The reintegration process impact

Impact of this reintegration approach on children will be analysed in chapter 5. Here, we look at the impact this methodology had on government staff. To build staff capacity, the reintegration programme provided a course and certificate of study on social work to 257 government officers. This opportunity built staff confidence, job satisfaction and a desire for professional growth. As a result, some staff re-ceived job promotions, whilst others enrolled in col-lege to pursue advanced qualifications in the same field. Furthermore, a notable improvement has been observed in staff-children dynamics, promot-ing the personal growth of both staff and children.

Moreover, the establishment of a reintegration sec-tion in institutions has allowed for teamwork to flourish in an exercise that was previously seen as an individual task. Children and family counselling has facilitated the assessment, tracing and identifica-tion of significant caregivers and resources, improv-ing case resolutions and the connections between the institution and communities. At the institution, a child’s preparation for exit is carried out through educational activities, provision of life skills, partici-pation, theatre or music clubs, peer education pro-grammes, sports and creative arts among others.

4.3.6 Innovation

1. The strengthening of institutional structures – i.e. the introduction of case management models, case conferencing, three sections, man-

50

agement meeting and records keeping – has improved the reintegration process. There has been a reduction in the backlog of court cases and the family conferencing model has reduced the relapse of cases.

2. Older children leaving the institution are trained and supported in running small businesses to strengthen their income-generating capacity and reduce relapses to crime or street life.

4.3.7 Constraints

Challenges still persist, as reintegration remains a complex and demanding exercise with regard to staff engagement and resources. Main constraints are:

1. Limited human and financial resources to carry out adequate assessment of the family, home visits, family conferencing and empowerment.

2. Inadequate case management and compliance with agreed protocols. Quick child repatriation methods still hold appeal in order to hasten turnaround and reduce the institution popula-tion.

3. Complexity of working with families due to lo-gistic reasons, for example geographical dis-tance, but also because there is a need for mid/long-term engagement in order to address the multifaceted family conditions affecting the child. Therefore, family conferencing may ap-pear a too demanding exercise.

4. An entrenched culture of reliance on the state and a tendency to delegate to institutions what should be parental responsibility.

5. Due to understaffing, the double role staff play as both counsellors and discipline keepers may hinder the staff-child relationship and prevent trust.


In order to achieve a successful reintegration, the following points are the most relevant:

1. High quality standards should be applied to the following activities:

• Tracing methods;• Preparation of the child/family by the

agency;• Building community linkages;• Building family and community engage-

ment: family conferencing, restorative justice;

• Documentation & records;• Inter-agency information management

system.

2. Training of a child’s developmental needs, work-ing with their families, viewing reintegration as a process and possessing adequate knowledge of procedures help in achieving a proper family reunification.

3. Mentoring and counselling children and fami-lies, conducting assessment and holding family conferencing allows for skill enhancement and capacity building. Direct implementation also builds experience.

4. Reintegration that follows the minimum quality standards will result in children being success-fully integrated back to their families, school and communities.

5. Measuring the reintegration process is an im-portant step. Monitoring and evaluating the reintegration process is an essential component of an effective practice, it enables learning and improved approaches, methodologies, strate-gies etc. Indicators can be identified with regard to:

• Outcomes: e.g. percentage of children who have been reunified and settled with their families for more than 6 months;

51

• Actions: e.g. the percentage of children whose families were traced who were then reunited with caregivers; the percentage of children who have received at least one fol-low up visit after reunification; or case work-ers receiving regular training.

4.4 THE REINTEGRATION PROCESS GUIDELINES

4.4.1 The reintegration process steps

The following steps should be undertaken to imple-ment optimal family reintegration:

• Child intake at the institution;

• Orientation of child at intake and target setting completed to prepare for exit;

• Conducting of a thorough social inquiry and tracing of a child’s family;

• Conducting of a professional assessment;

• Conducting of a case conference with relevant staff for the child;

• Designing of an individual care/treatment plan;

• Rehabilitation based on individual needs;

• Drawing up of a reintegration budget;

• Early family and community visits to assess the family and the sustainability of the reintegra-tion – identify the child and family’s support structures within the community, i.e. schools, churches, mosques and youth groups;

• Invitation of the child’s family to the institution for briefing and counselling;

• Compiling a family environmental adjustment report;

• Conducting comprehensive networking in the field with the DCS field officers, the child’s school, church, peers, and identify local human resources (e.g. Juakali);

• Conducting the FGDM conference or Restor-ative Justice conference;

• Reintegrating the child into formal/informal education, vocational training/apprenticeship schemes or gainful employment;

• Conducting aftercare by the DCS field officer, through monitoring the implementation of the FGDM commitment with the support of the child’s contact person – duration is related to the risk of relapse.

4.4.2 Focus activities for reintegration

Statutory children institutions can powerfully sup-port the reintegration process by engaging in the following activities:

1. Counselling

There might be many underlying issues that cause a child to act out or run away from home, and these can be explored during counselling sessions. Coun-selling is a process and not a quick-fix activity, since children tend to only share problems once they are able to trust the counsellor with their story. Usu-ally, on arrival at the institution, the child is still traumatized by what they have gone through, and furthermore, the child has to get used to their new environment, routine and patterns. An approach by counsellors that shows unconditional positive inter-est in a child encourages them in sharing their con-cerns and fears.

Since most issues affecting children originate in the family, it is of paramount importance to provide family counselling sessions to parents and caregiv-ers as well. Often, it is dysfunctional relationships that cause children to run away from the negative situations or to develop antisocial behaviours. This non-verbal communication results in a child being labelled as bad or unfit for society. Therefore, par-ents need a few counselling sessions to possibly re-move any prejudices, and in order to help them see from the child’s perspective and understand that their child’s behaviour is only a cry for help. Once they have taken responsibility of their role and ac-cepted the need for change, preparation for fam-ily reunification can begin – usually by arranging a family conference.


52

2. Home tracing

This is conducted once the information given by the child about their home area is found to be cor-rect. Home tracing includes a first assessment of the child’s environment, and a meeting with the child’s parents or caregivers. This provides additional in-formation on the child’s story and a broader under-standing for the child’s reintegration plan. The par-ents, caregivers and significant others are invited to the institution for family counselling, whilst neigh-bours, teachers and any other person who has in-formation about the family of the child are also con-tacted. As the child’s assessment is drafted, goals are discussed with the child and family members.

3. Case conference

The case conference is a forum where institution staff share information, finalise the assessment and design a way forward. The best interest of the child remains at the heart of the child’s care plan throughout. The conference is a meeting attended by staff members who are directly or indirectly in-volved with the child, and is chaired by the insti-tution’s manager. Minutes are drafted that respect confidentiality, and records are kept in the child’s personal file.

4. Reintegration

The last step of a child’s reunification with their fam-ily is the act of taking them back home to their par-ents, caregivers or significant others. Depending on the circumstances and case assessment, it may pos-sibly include a family conference or just a meeting attended by the family and the DCS children officer, Probation officer or local chief. A successful reinte-gration depends on these networks and the com-munication built during the entire process by the institutions management, DCS sub-county services, community stakeholders (e.g. chiefs, school heads), local organisations, neighbours, family and friends, etc. The child’s extended family plays a critical role in providing them direction and support during the aftercare period.

4.4.3 Roles and responsibilities of the reintegration process

Various roles are played by diverse stakeholders across the juvenile justice system with the aim of reuniting a child with his/her family, as shown in Diagram 2 below:

Diagram 2: roles of stakeholders in a child’s reintegration process

53


Macro level: key government agencies and ministries

The reintegration process requires on-going human and financial resources, otherwise it cannot be sus-tainable on its own. The active participation of the governmental and para-governmental stakehold-ers will guarantee the support of the established re-integration process conditions, and possibly further improve the protective environment needed to re-integrate a child. In particular, the National Council on the Children’s Services (NCCS) has the mandate to exercise general supervision and control over the planning, financing and coordination of child rights and welfare activities. The NCCS can advise the government on all aspects related to the rights and welfare of children in Kenya, and the need to have children reintegration processes in its agenda and programming. The engagement of child ser-vices and probation departments in the reintegra-tion process has already facilitated ownership of the process. A great challenge is represented with the Kenyan Treasury, who are not yet engaged in giving financial priority to children in need.

Micro level: statutory children institutions

Individual Statutory Institutions need to be core drivers of reintegrating children through stronger networking and community-centred interventions that are in collaboration with local line ministries of-fices. Chiefs, probation/child officers and police of-ficers represent an effective entry point for tracing, assessment and reintegration, and networking with these bodies could reduce expenses. Some reinte-gration activities have little to no financial require-ments, such as counselling and the case conference, whereas others incur high costs, such as family re-union, tracing and family conferencing. To this end, some institutions have adopted a working platform model, where public and private stakeholders part-ner and complement each other in their roles and responsibilities for reintegration.


4.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter has argued that reintegration is a pro-cess for children, which unfolds over months, if not years (Better Care Network, et al. 2013). We must not lose sight of the fact that over this period, the ultimate goal of reintegration is not merely the sus-tained placement of the child with family members, but instead concerns itself with the child’s develop-ment into happy, healthy adulthood. The common challenges outlined create an opportunity for dia-logue and learning across agencies working in this broad field of family reintegration. They also high-light the potential for improved quality processes around reintegration practices. As the quality of the worker and the resources that they can bring to bear are central components of family reintegration, it is also true that various actors need to come together more effectively to advocate for more and better use of resources. Some of this can be achieved by pooling training opportunities available, or estab-lishing field collaboration. In all of this work around child protection system strengthening, it is essential that particular efforts be made to specifically build capacity to promote sustained family reintegration.

54

CHAPTER FIVE

The Family Group Decision-Making ModelAuthor

Wachira Patrick Maina - Child Protection Specialist, Family Conferencing Trainer and Practitioner

Organization: CESVI

Abstract

The Family Group Decision-Making model (FGDM) is drawn from the broad concept of Family Group Con-ferencing (FGC) and is a method of working with the extended family and community to address a problem and devise a safe plan for one of their family members. The model represents an innovative and progressive departure from traditional decision-making models within child welfare, and sees new emphases placed on expert knowledge and the skills of professionals within a complex context.

55

A relatively new concept in Kenya, having originat-ed from New Zealand among the Māori community Kenya. The model was first introduced within the Juvenile Justice (JJ) System in 2005 as an innova-tive and practical method for successful reintegra-tion of children. Research conducted on 73 families whose children were in the system and reintegrated through FGDM demonstrated that such children exhibited high levels of resilience, regaining and learning better protection mechanisms within fam-ily and community settings as a result of resolutions made by the family. Research and practice on FGDM also indicates that there are increased family-based response mechanisms to after-shocks for families that have gone through the process. Important positive trends were evident for emotional, social and resource mobilisation. Findings also indicate that there are benefits of FGDM for children in terms of mobilising and remobilising social networks for long-term social assistance.

The model has gained recognition by JJ actors through its inclusion in the inter-agency case man-agement protocol, the “Consolidated Through Care Guidelines” (2013). There is therefore an even great-er need for this model to be anchored in national legislation.

Key words

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM), Kenya Juve-nile Justice (JJ), Family Conferencing

Stakeholders and partners

The main beneficiaries of this model are children within statutory institutions who have the potential to be reintegrated back to their families. The Depart-ment of Children Services (DCS), Probation Depart-ment and Child Welfare Society of Kenya are partner organisations in implementing this action, which is part of the larger ‘Improving the Kenya Juvenile Jus-tice’ project. The model has been applied in ten Re-mand Homes and eight Rehabilitation Schools.


The situation of children within the JJ System has a long history that dates back to the colonial peri-od. In response to children found to be in conflict with the law, the government established statu-tory institutions – namely Remand Homes and Re-habilitation Schools. Later on, Rescue Centres were established to care for children in need of care and protection (0-6 years old). These institutions are ac-corded varying mandates as per the Children’s Act of 2001 and provide services ranging from safety, temporary custody and rehabilitation programmes. All statutory institutions offer children temporary custody varying from a period of three months to three years, after which children are expected to be re-united with their families.

It was ascertained from a mapping produced from a recent baseline survey on violence against chil-dren that there are close to 2,500 children transiting statutory institutions daily across Rescue Centres, Remand Homes, Rehabilitation Schools, Borstal Institution and Probation Hostels in Kenya. The re-unification of these children with their families is realised through a repatriation order, at expiry of a committal order in a statutory institutions, or re-lease on license. However, field practice evidence reveals that children both in need of care and in conflict with the law cannot benefit from repatria-tion. Repatriation cannot respond to the underlying needs of the child due to procedure often not com-plying with minimum reintegration standards. It is in this regard that the system has continuously suf-fered from re-offending children who struggle with high levels of recidivism and relapses respectively.

Actors in the sector have been tasked with the chal-lenge of looking for alternatives that could alleviate the situation, while ensuring that the principles gov-erning child protection both locally and globally are upheld. At the global level, there is wide acceptance that the institutionalisation of children should only come as a last measure. However, this approach ap-


56

pears to conflict with long-entrenched systems of child institutionalisation – especially when viewed to have anti-social behavioural issues.

The system entrusted and mandated to respond to this category of children has faced numerous challenges, including inadequate facilities, a lack of human resources and an insufficient recurrent budgetary allocation. By and large, institutions such as these have traditionally faced stigma as centres meant for social misfits, and hence suffered from further isolation from interactions with the larger society. This attitude applies not only to the local community but expands to legal, policy and finan-cial decision-makers.

These impeding factors are compounded by the poor application of legally required repatriation or-ders that have continued to widen the gap between services offered and the actual needs of a child. This has been found to be a common problem, especial-ly in situations where the implementation of legal provisions is not supported by the corresponding services that would otherwise assist in ensuring the safety, permanency and wellbeing of children in care.

There has been an increasing need to have com-munity-based approaches that would – in the long term – strike a balance between the need for the institutionalisation of children and the establish-ment of preventive and restorative mechanisms, which respond to children’s needs within a reason-able timeframe. The DCS, as the leading agency de-partment, has made efforts to reform the delivery of services, especially at institutional level. Among these efforts is an envisioning of a reintegration programme that is more comprehensive and cli-ent need driven, as opposed to repatriation, and is one that upholds the objectives enshrined in the Children’s Act of 2001. These challenges have led to a re-evaluation of the approaches of private and public actors, and a review of the mere repatriation policies provided in the law. Based on documented evidence, approaches such as FGDM have begun

to gain support among actors with the associated view that the system needs to increase the role of families and communities in finding solutions to their children’s problems.

5.2 DEFINITIONS

Family Group Decision-Making: according to the American Humane Association and the FGDM Guidelines Committee (2010), is a decision-making process in which members of the family group are invited to meet and are joined by members of their informal network, community groups and by the child welfare agency involved in their family’s life. The family members define whom they claim as their family group.

Family Group Conferencing (FGC): defined in Wikipedia (under the broad definition of family con-ferencing) as “a mediated formal meeting between family members and other officials such as social workers and police in regards to the care and protec-tion or criminal offending of a child or adolescent”.1 It is a voluntary consensual decision-making meeting for a family or community group, where they can develop and implement a plan that resolves the is-sues surrounding a child, and works towards keep-ing the child safe and well cared for. The term “fam-ily” is used broadly to include both immediate and extended family members, as well as anyone associ-ated with the family who can help to contribute to respond to the child’s needs.

Community resources and networks may also be utilised in order to create a strong community sup-port system around the family, greatly aiding in the success of the response plan.

Through these measures the family is empowered and takes the primary responsibility for their child, rather than simply relinquishing or delegating their role to external agencies and authorities. The model is guided by principles and practices that are en-shrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, Preamble), that state that a family

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Group_Conference

57

should be treated as the “natural environment for the growth and well-being” of children, and should therefore be “afforded the necessary protection and assistance” that is required to guarantee the care and protection of their child.

5.3 Best practice: The Family Group Decision-Making model

The FGDM model is drawn from the broad concept of FGC, which is a method of working with the ex-tended family and community of a child to address any problems and make a safe plan for their future. It represents an innovative and progressive departure from the traditional decision-making models within child welfare, which places great emphasis on the expert knowledge and skills of professionals within a complex context. The FGC approach first originat-ed in New Zealand among the Māori community in an attempt to integrate their values and culture in the formal child protection system. The practice was consolidated through the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (1989), which made families a central part of the practice and services where deci-sions about their children were to be made. In the context of New Zealand, the FGC is where the whole whānau (family and extended family members) can help make decisions about the best way to support the family and take care of their child.2

Since its inception in New Zealand the model has spread throughout many European and North American countries, and it has greatly influenced so-cial work and criminal justice jurisdictions. Despite the apparent popularity of this approach however, where it is not legislatively mandated, it remains a marginal practice. In the Kenyan context, the model was first introduced in the Juvenile Justice System by CEFA, an Italian NGO working within statutory in-stitutions. From 2005 to 2011 the pilot project titled “Safety Nets” implemented the new model across a few of the country’s statutory children institutions, including the Nairobi Children Remand Home, Dag-oretti Rehabilitation School and Thika Children Res-cue Centre. The FGDM impact was documented in a

2 For further information see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Group_Conference

retrospective study that focused on 73 FGDM held between 2006 and 2008 {Ottolini D., 2011).

5.3.1 International and local legal instruments

The FGDM model is not enshrined into Kenyan law, however, the spirit adopted by the model is re-flected within UNCRC’s principles – in particular ar-ticle 5 which states that “States’ Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended fam-ily or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child” (UNCRC Article 5).

Furthermore, article 4.2 of the Children’s Act of 2001, located in Part II “Safeguards for the Rights and Welfare of the Child”, the act emphasises that “In all actions concerning children, whether under-taken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”. The key phrase in this article is “best interests”, a principle promoted throughout the Act. Furtherance to this principle – under Part II article 6.2 – the act gives mandate to the government to reunite a child who is separated from their family, stating that “Where a child is separated from his fam-ily without the leave of the court, the government shall provide assistance for reunification of the child with his family”.

It is in this spirit of “reunification” with the family that the model finds its legal justification in the country. Application of the model has ensured that both the UNCRC and the Children’s Act (2001) are adhered to, while at the same time maintaining minimum stan-dards, which include:

• That a child or young person’s family members and extended support network should par-ticipate in the decisions affecting the child or young person;

• That, wherever possible, the relationship be-tween a child or young person and their care-givers should be maintained, and if possible,


58

strengthened;

• That consideration must always be given to how a decision affects the welfare and well-being of a child or young person, and that the stability of that child or young person’s family and support group is maintained;

• That consideration should be given to the wish-es of the child or young person;

• That endeavours should be made to obtain the support of the parents, guardians or other per-sons charged with the care of the child;

• That decisions made affecting a child or young person should be implemented within a time frame appropriate to them.

5.3.2 The FDGM model in Kenya

In the Kenyan context, the model has grown ex-ponentially since its introduction to the country in 2005 when it was based in only one statutory insti-tution, to 2014 where it had expanded to become a countrywide model covering 28 statutory institu-tions. The principles and application of the model resonates well with traditional African forms of dis-pute resolution. It engages not only the immediate family – which may be in crisis or unable to provide a safe home – but the extended family and commu-nity as well, therefore a considerable amount of time and effort is put into preparing the extended family and community members for an FGDM meeting.

The conference takes a formal meeting structure where the family, community members, the child and professional practitioners closely work together to make a decision that best meets the needs of the child. Professionals connect with the child in need or young offender, as well as their families, other care-givers from the community, schools, religious insti-tutions and other actors connected to the family. Information givers include the child’s counsellor or social worker and other relevant people with perti-nent information, i.e. state social workers (otherwise known as children officers or community based vol-unteer children officers), supervision officers such

as probation officers, chiefs and other relevant child protection and welfare staff from charitable organ-isations. The selection of FGDM participants is made during the preparation stage, and includes a family and community risks/needs assessment.

Accordingly, family members are helped to select participants based on the outcome of the assess-ment and to invite them to the family meeting. In this context, unlike in other jurisdictions where it may apply that state social workers refer the case through the Children Court, the FGDM is applied to exit procedures since most of these cases have already been presented in court. This means that the intervention through the family conference has always come at the end of the long chain for admin-istration of justice.

Therefore, a statutory institutions manager will refer a child for FGDM once the child is deemed ready for exit and/or has completed their custody term or has a repatriation order, which is the case for children in need of care and protection. This means that the model is mainly used as a part of a child’s reintegra-tion to their family and community. Major stake-holders are guided by a JJ inter-agency case man-agement protocol titled “Through Care Guidelines” which details how a child should be exited from an institution. (GOK, 2013).

5.3.3 FGDM impact

The FGDM model has greatly contributed in improv-ing child welfare within statutory institutions based at family level rather than prescribed by profession-als. Through this cultural shift the best place for a child’s growth is believed to be the family, unlike the approach where institutionalisation seemed to ap-pear as the best or only option available. Through this model, cases of children have been reintegrated back to their families. This method ensures that un-necessary long-term disconnection of a child from their family is reduced, and that the active participa-tion of a family is emphasised from the earliest op-portunity.

59

A longitudinal study (Ottolini, 2011) on FGDM con-ferences ran from a period of 24 to 54 months after the family conference, accounted for indicators of a child’s increased stability once reintegrated – unlike those children repatriated through the standardised repatriation procedures of the JJ System. There was a significant statistical variance in which children reintegrated through FGDM recorded a subsequent 8.2% of runaway cases, much lower than that of the control group recording 28.8%. This points towards the conclusion that reintegration for children who have participated in FGDM results in a higher per-manency probability.

Runaway child cases are often reabsorbed into the JJ System, either as a child in need of care and pro-tection or as a child offender, continuing the vicious cycle of children entering and exiting the statutory institutions system. Undoubtedly, these children endure negative traumatising and hardening ex-periences within the system, as well as the loss of opportunities for education and bonding with their caregivers, and furthermore they become even more disconnected from their families. On the other hand, children who still exhibit issues but have gone through the FGDM system, have often utilised the mobility and assistance offered from an extended family. This is in line with agreements made among relatives during FGDM in response to a child’s emerging needs, and confirms that the large fam-ily system is positively reinforced through FGDM. It also further restores confidence in the traditional extended family system, still recognising parents as the primary caregivers in childcare.

With regard to family engagement, the same study showed a wide attendance with an average of 10 participants per conference. Furthermore, it indi-cated that biological parents attended 64.4% of the conferences. Considering also stepparents among the parental caregivers, 87.7% of all conferences had parental representation. This indicates a sig-nificant involvement of the nuclear families, a key ingredient for a successful family conference. At each conference there was an average participa-

tion of 5.6 family members and 3.6 service provid-ers – indicating that family participants dominated attendance of the meetings. This clearly shows fam-ily conferences received an overwhelming response by families, while the role of the professionals was reduced to facilitation, with families taking respon-sibility of their children.

The study also analysed the outcomes of three ma-jor domains (safety, permanency and well-being) based on the principle that every child has the right to appropriate care and a permanent home. The study looked at the progression of a child’s safety, permanency and well-being between two and four years after the conference. FGDM was confirmed to effectively help families in changing their previous internal patterns of abuse with a cumulative per-centage of change reaching 71.2%. Furthermore, the introduction of family response plans appears to have reduced children’s risk of harm up to 76.7%, while permanency was also confirmed for the over-whelming majority of children (87.1%) – that is 61 cases out of the 73 that were analysed.

The model facilitated to a great extent the engage-ment of families in plan implementation and pro-vision of needed services after the conference. An overwhelming 83.5% of FGDM cases indicated that there was effective support by the parental and ex-tended family in the response plan implementation, thus providing families control over development of safety, placement and coordination of services.

Whilst the cost implications for FGDM are higher than those of repatriation – accounting in 2011 an estimated variance of KES. 4,100/- more per child for FGDM –these costs are only related to staff travel, communication and a lunch allowance, and no cost is attributed to family logistic needs whatsoever. However, it should be noted that this cost increase compares little to the improved long-term stability that is created from FGDM cases, and the subse-quent benefits for families and communities. Fur-thermore, this cost variance was experienced whilst the model was not receiving any direct intervention


60

from government agencies at the local community level. And therefore in the long run the community response would go far in reducing travel costs and the frequency of police and court procedures that would otherwise be required repeatedly in the case of relapse. Therefore, most benefits of FGDM are assessed in terms of the models cost effectiveness against long-term gains as children are contained within the family and community.

Further the study demonstrates evidence suggest-ing that the relationships between family members, and between the family and community members, improved greatly following an FGDM meeting. This actually was not an intended result of the confer-ence but was a well-received positive outcome for families who through “improved family function-ing renewed contact with relatives and more open communication” (Ottolini, 2011, p.201). This greatly increased resilience levels for both children and families. Even in situations where the immediate caregivers were unable to positively accommodate the child, there would often be a substitute guard-ian figure with better communication skills and an increased capacity to defuse oppositional behav-iours among family members. As such, unhealthy blame games and finger pointing is reduced and the focus is kept on the child.

Furthermore, child participation in the process is given prominence as children are able to present their views and are listened to with less of a judg-mental attitude by family members. The involve-ment of children in finding solutions to their con-dition results in greater levels of child compliance, resilience and an increased positive self-image. Though participation of children in the conference is limited by both cultural factors and by the child’s developmental capacity, it is significant to note that child attendance at the conferences was recorded at 100% - although their participation was limited to the introductory stage and the finalisation of the plan. This is a significant departure from the tradi-tional approach dominated by adults, where chil-dren perspectives are not represented and largely

overlooked. Child participation provides a strong contribution in reassuring a child’s sense of belong-ing to the family.

Through FGDM, families are placed at an advantage concerning the social support provided to them by availing both emotional and physical resources to respond to the child’s needs, thus contributing to achieving better outcomes in readjusting their fam-ily system.

5.3.4 Innovation

This model has presented a shift from the traditional and ineffectual method of repatriation to a myriad of innovative approaches. It embraces the broader concepts of reintegration and child participation at an institutional and family level and it builds com-munity-based social networks that are effective, long lasting and reliable in responding to children’s needs over a prolonged period of time.The practice has since been validated by its inclusion within the government inter-agency JJ case management pro-tocol titled “Through Care Guidelines”, in which JJ ac-tors have adopted the model for reintegrating chil-dren back into their families of origin.

5.3.5 FGDM constraints

The process of planning the FGDM conference is completely incompatible within the framework of repatriation. FGDM requires considerable commu-nity work and hence it requires proper planning and coordination of stakeholders and service provision. The involvement of community stakeholders in child protection is vital to ensure thorough prepara-tion and successful application of the model. Pres-ently, JJ actors are key to the model’s success, but are thinly distributed at a field level and challenged by inadequate harmonisation and coordination of services.


During implementation of the FGDM model im-portant lessons were learnt. First, it was clear that

61

implementing FGDM takes time and perseverance, while JJ agencies often tend to rush the process. Significant consideration needs to be made in re-gard to conference preparation, since it is what de-termines the final result of the process. Families and children going through FGDM must be well pre-pared, and the decision to apply the model has to be made jointly with the professionals. Practice has shown that hurried preparation in order to hasten the release of a child from an institution often has negative results.

Furthermore, it is also clear that families may face numerous challenges not only in regard to their child but also due to a multiplicity of dysfunctions. Even in such situations, it is always crucial to place the family at the centre of decision-making and work towards strengthening their system rather than assuming the role of decision makers on their behalf.

The role of the FGDM coordinator must be well understood. On many occasions, this role will de-termine the outcome of the FGDM, influencing throughout the preparation stage, the meeting itself and the finalisation of the plan. When the coordinator retains professionalism in the alloca-tion of expected roles, there is a noted increase in the participation of other professionals and family members, and hence an increase in the quality of the family plan.

A critical requirement for an FGDM conference is that the family members should always outnumber the professionals. It is necessary to note that this re-mains essentially a family meeting and hence pro-fessionals should not dominate the session.

Though FGDM is such a powerful model for reinte-gration, evidence also indicates that it is crucial to in-corporate a strong aftercare component to support the family in the implementation of the plan. This may even require a revision of the plan through a subsequent FGDM meeting to suit emerging needs.

5.4 FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING GUIDELINES

5.4.1 The FGDM process

The actual meeting, or conference, is preceded by the preparation process – a crucial stage in mak-ing the child, family, community and other relevant stakeholders aware of their roles and responsibili-ties. Preparation also entails collecting necessary in-formation on the safety and well being of the child once out of the institution. This is very critical for both the institution where the child has been host-ed, and the field office i.e. children officer or proba-tion officer, otherwise referred in the “Through Care Guidelines” as the receiving office where the child will be reintegrated back through family confer-ence.

The actual meeting eventually takes place at a time and place convenient to the family. The below pro-cedures are a harmonised format of the Through Care Guidelines (2013). This process requires time and a good coordination of the actors and other stakeholders, noting that the process is not organ-ised solely by a single agency, nor is it individually driven. Careful measures and necessary due dili-gence must me be taken especially at the prepa-ration stage, which is very critical to the outcome of the whole process. Experience has shown that rushed models often produce negative results and that the common pitfall is for stakeholders or case-workers to focus too intently on the meeting itself, which is of course just the end result. More atten-tion needs to be given to the actual processes in-volved in the meeting preparation.

5.4.2 Replication and up scaling

Internationally, there exists considerable evidence both in practice and in documentation that shows the model to have worked in varying contexts and cultures, and it is important for JJ actors to appre-ciate the context in which the model is applied. The greater demand for quick fix solutions, such as rapid result initiatives (RRI) that are skewed mainly


62

towards quantitative achievement, means that measures for assessing the qualitative nature of the model such as the engagement of communities and a family’s social fabric, often go ignored. Agen-cies willing to apply the model would need their of-ficers to have received proper training that is also supported by the mentorship of skilled practitio-ners. Minimum standards for the model are entailed in the stipulated steps below.

5.4.3 Steps to implement the FGDM conference

1. Referral and preparation

• The institution manager, assisted by the case worker (counsellor/social worker or both) and the case conference committee based at the in-stitution, identifies the needs of the child, con-sults with the family and arrives at a decision to have a family conference.

• The manager contacts the receiving field office, i.e. the children officer or probation officer, and shares the relevant details of the child. Both begin to work out an exit plan including meet-ing the family and logistical preparation for the meeting.

• Participants are identified by the family in con-sultation with the caseworker who contacts them in conjunction with the receiving officer, secures their voluntary participation, ascertains any specific cultural, religious, language inter-pretation or other needs, and prepares them for the conference – including information on the process, roles and responsibilities and any rel-evant supportive community resources.

• The caseworker assists the family in mapping out their support networks, and determines what resources they may need in order to re-spond to the risks previously identified. Con-siderable emphasis is made in sourcing partici-pants from within their extended families and community, matching these needs with com-munity resources where possible.

• The caseworker convenes and facilitates the

conference, arranging for a suitable and appro-priate venue.

2. The conference: information sharing

• After introductions and an overview of the tasks of the conference, pertinent information such as a summary of facts is shared. The caseworker from here on assumes the role of the confer-ence facilitator, ensuring first of all that the child understands the model and that they are in-volved in its objectives and process, as well as being aware of the importance of the other par-ticipants. The facilitator seeks the consent of the child to carry on with the meeting, and at this point the child is expected to share their views.

• The facilitator takes the opportunity to state the objectives of the meeting, the role of each participant and helps in setting ground rules for all participants in terms of language, manner of expression, respect for others’ views and equal participation, timeframes and any other mat-ters that may facilitate the smooth running of the meeting.

• The facilitator takes the time to clearly state all the issues affecting the survival, permanence, safety and well being of the child. It is important to note that these issues are often derived from interactions with the child, family members and even members of the community. Usually, a synthesis of these issues had already been dis-cussed during the case conference and a few critical issues are therefore given prominence.

• Appreciating other considerations such as the confidentiality of the child and the family, the facilitator is guided by the case conference on the most critical problems to be tabled in the meeting and for which the family would need to come up with resolutions, otherwise known as the family plan. All pertinent information is shared, and the conference participants are as-sisted in focusing on the real causes that pro-duce these dysfunctional symptoms for which their support and resources are sought.

63

• After this, the floor is then open to all conference participants to give their views. There is no strict stipulated order on who should contribute first, however, preference is given to all professionals and, in accordance with cultural practices, the head of the family is given priority.

• The facilitator remains in control of the meeting in terms of moderation but ensures that there is active participation from all participants. Mod-eration on the part of the facilitator will also entail that there is no undue dominance by one whilst others are relegated to the periphery and become inactive participants.

• After all have exhausted their views, the facilita-tor helps the family to synthesise their discus-sions and guides them on how to proceed dur-ing the private family time by focusing on the root causes of the problem and how they may solicit an appropriate response.

3. The conference: private family time

• The child’s family is then given time for pri-vate deliberations, where they will talk things through and develop a plan. They may invite any participant to answer questions and clarify issues during this time.

• The facilitator remains at hand and is available for any support – though only at the request of the family. Otherwise, the facilitator takes a back seat and along with the other profession-als, vacates the room and allows for the family to deliberate and work out a plan on their own.

4. The conference: the plan

• The family, facilitator, professionals and other participants will then come together again. The family will present their plan to the entire conference participants and they collectively review it.

• The plan is discussed to ensure clarity, feasibil-ity, measurability and the ability to be moni-tored within an appropriate time frame by spe-cific persons – in this case the children officer,

probation officer or other delegated officer by the receiving office.

• Full agreement for the plan is then sought from the conference participants. It is the primary role of the facilitator to ensure that the plan meets the minimum standards for admissibility.

• The family takes a primary role in communicat-ing to the child the outcome of the conference and seeks the child’s views on the same. The fa-cilitator will ensure that the child understands the plan and is in agreement with it. In case it is not clear or there is an issue not addressed, the facilitator will ensure that the same is clarified or included in the plan.

• Together with the facilitator, the receiving offi-cer or representative of the receiving office, will agree on the contact person who will keep the office updated on the progress of the child, and on immediate actions to be taken soon after the meeting. Such actions may include the child re-porting to school, provision of school uniform, medical attention if needed, introduction into a community care centre or a sporting facility etc.

• The facilitator leads the conference participants in agreeing to a follow up meeting in order to monitor the progress of the plan. This may be conducted two months after the conference, especially when it is felt that the child is still faced with levels of high-risk.

• The facilitator ensures that copies of the agreed family plan are issued to the family, the child or probation officer in the receiving office, and a copy is taken back to the statutory institution where the child originated.


Although the model is enshrined within the inter-agency “Through Care Guidelines”, it remains only at the level of protocol in case management, and there is a need to give the model a solid legal foundation in order to ensure its sustainability. Critically, this would mean having the model enshrined within


64

the national legal framework so that it can open channels for government expenditure to be chan-nelled to agencies for such purposes, including the training of officers and the actual application of the model at community level.

5.5 CONCLUSION

The FGDM model is an innovative model in which families actively participate in the decision making of issues affecting their children. This model offers a great opportunity in which justice actors can exploit family and community-based resources and once again restore family dynamics to a family otherwise faced with serious challenges and dysfunctions. There is a need for all actors applying this model to believe that the good will and capacity of the fam-ily will triumph during these difficult situations. In this manner, agencies will also give right priorities to children and their families.

The limitations in the application of this model emanate from the fact that there is no legislation in terms of its application. Proper legislation would create a platform through which government fund-ing could be planned for and more agencies within the JJ System could be accorded a legal mandate to apply FGDM with clearly guided structures. This will ensure that FGDM is not only applied at the end of the justice process, but that it is applied right away at the police station and courts level as part of the diversion process. This immediate implementation is both preventive and curative in its application. Its utilisation would also ensure that the system is proactive in nature and does not require all cases of children to proceed and eventually loose out on other developmental needs that are well catered for within the family.

Application of FGDM needs to be undertaken by all actors across the broad spectrum of reintegration, and agencies need to work towards inclusive com-munity and family involvement, as opposed to the current repatriation practice, which often does not answer to the critical needs of children and their families.

Due to the lack of human resource capacity in terms of the numbers of staff and their level of skill de-velopment – both at an institutions and field level – there is a need to exploit community-based struc-tures already recognised by law, including the vol-unteer children and probation officers, members of the Area Advisory Council, and the Nyumba Kumi initiative under the local administration. The role that these actors already play in child protection could be enhanced considerably by government funding, which would enable their training needs, transport, communication and some form of sti-pend allowance to facilitate their work. In this way, these child protection actors could come in handy in ensuring the proper application of community-based practices such as FGDM, while offering after-care supervision for the implementation of family plans.

65

Author Otieno Fredrick - Paralegal Office

Organization LRF

Abstract

This paper discusses the innovative concept of Children Court Users Committees (CCUC), which has been piloted in Kenya since 2014 in order to help enhance service delivery of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS). It is adopted from the Court Users Committees Model (CUC)3, which has been incorporated into Kenya’s

3 CUCs are established under the National Council on the Administration of Justice, see Section 34 of the Judicial Service Act of

CHAPTER 6

The Role Of Children Court Users Committees In Transforming The Juvenile Justice System In Kenya

66

national justice system. Despite the important role that CUCs play in the administration of justice they were found to be less effective in addressing the challenges affecting the proper administration of children cases, which are unique, less visible and usually not high in the justice agenda.

This paper reviews CCUCs composition, operations and application as a best practice. Most important-ly, it highlights the gaps that the concept addresses, and the opportunities for enhancing its effective-ness as a tool for improved administration of juve-nile justice. Finally, it addresses its viability as a sus-tainable strategy for service delivery within the JJS.

Key words

Children Court Users Committees (CCUCs); Kenya Juvenile Justice (JJ); Justice system coordination; Access to justice

Location

Presently, the Children Court Users Committee is a practice piloted in six administrative regions or counties. They include Nairobi, Kisumu, Mombasa, Nakuru, Machakos and Nyeri. The membership is made of key juvenile justice stakeholders drawn from both state and non-state agencies, including NGOs working with children, as well as legal aid pro-viders. The CCUCs conduct their activities within the concerned court’s administrative regions and report directly to the Resident Judge who chairs the main CUC.

Stakeholders and partners

The primary beneficiaries of the project are the chil-dren engaged in the JJS, while the secondary ben-eficiaries are the various stakeholders who are able to strengthen their capacity through the collabora-tive approaches of the CCUCs. CCUCs are a collab-orative multi-agency forum comprising of state and

2011. CUCs at the county and local level provide a unique opportunity for actors in the justice system to hold each other accountable and also to inform policy development at the county and national level.

non-state agencies, including the Judiciary (chairs of the CCUCs), the Probation & Aftercare Depart-ment (CCUCs Secretariat), Power of Mercy Advisory Committee (POMAC) (analyses cases for pardon), the Government Chemist (analyses evidence), Med-ical Superintendents in charge of the local medical facility (offers health care; conducts age assess-ment), the Children Department (responsible for child welfare), the National Police Service (law en-forcement and child protection), the Officer of the Director Public Prosecutions (ODPP) (prosecution), Kenya Prisons Service (manages Borstal Institutions and Youth Correction and Training Centres (YCTCs) for child offenders), WPA (witness protection agen-cies), National Legal Education and Aid Programme (NLEAP), Law Society of Kenya (LSK) (legal aid), and Civil Society Organisations (offer legal aid to children, technical support and capacity building). Children in need of care and protection, who are in conflict with law and are hosted in Statutory Institu-tions, can also participate in CCUC. They may give their perspectives to JJS actors through Participa-tory Educational Theatre during CCUC meetings.


Chapter Four – also called the Bill of Rights (Con-stitution of Kenya, 2010 - Articles 19 – 59) confers specific rights to the people, as well as obligating the state to ensure the enjoyment of these free-doms. Under Article 53 it confers obligatory rights to children by virtue of their vulnerability in society. Therefore, the government has a legal obligation to ensure that children are protected and achieve their full development.

Kenya has made tremendous strides in enhanc-ing children’s welfare, safety and security through adoption and domestication of various interna-tional instruments into its local legislations. The operational law that protects children in Kenya is the Children Act No. 8 of 2001, which has heavily borrowed from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (1989). Indeed, the journey towards the realisation of a responsive legislation

67

and related administrative policies began in August 2001 with the enactment of this Act. Despite these milestones, children still face many problems with regard to the administration of justice, especially those considered most vulnerable. According to a 2013 – 2014 Judiciary Annual Report (2015), there were about 2,148 child offences (criminal matters) registered in the magistrates’ courts, constituting 1.5% of all criminal cases pending before the court. Admittedly, children who get entangled in the JJS, regardless of the reason why, face great challenges that affect their development and often also hinder their rights.

The justice system structure does not respond effec-tively to the needs of minors because it is designed to meet the needs of adult offenders as opposed to juveniles. For example, most police stations lack Children Protection Units4that can guarantee the safety of children in custody. Therefore, children who find themselves entangled within the JJS are locked up in adult cells, often lacking basic facilities such as beds or bedding, and are extremely exposed to diseases. At times they are even housed in units occupied by police officers within the stations, ex-posing them to various violations, including being forced into child labour and victims of sexual, physi-cal and psychological abuses. Similarly, children in conflict or contact with the law are held in adult cells when in court due to inadequate facilities, fur-ther exposing them to abuse. Human Rights Watch in its report, ‘Rights at Risk: Issues of Concern for Chil-dren inKenya’ (2001, p.2) highlights the various chal-lenges faced by children in conflict with the law in Kenya. The report finds that: ‘Once arrested, Kenyan children enter the revolving doors of the Juvenile Jus-tice System and begin a path that takes them from po-lice lock-up to court, from court to remand detention centers where they may circulate back and forth be-tween court appearances and remand for months or even years before finally receiving disposition of their cases’. The report also enumerates other infringe-ments such as the lack of legal representation; long period of trials, and the forcing of guilty pleas in an

4 Created under Children Act No. 8 of 2001

attempt to avoid incarceration in remand detention centres or remand prisons where conditions are known to be particularly harsh. It is indeed an in-dictment of a system failing to be responsive to the needs of children across the justice chain. Therefore, a well-coordinated and collaborative approach has been proposed by stakeholders in order to address these systemic challenges and enhance service de-livery within the sector.

The move towards a more collaborative approach in dealing with JJ issues began in 2001. In a seminar organised jointly by the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treat-ment of Offenders, the Judicial Training Centre, and the Government of Kenya named ‘Effective Admin-istration of Juvenile Justice’5, stakeholders recom-mended a series of legal and administrative resolu-tions, including a collaborative and multi-agency approach to dealing with issues affecting children within the JJ chain. This was in response to the find-ings on disjointed and uncoordinated operations of JJS agencies that hindered the smooth delivery of justice to juveniles. Repeatedly, JJ matters are not given the adequate attention that they require as they are overshadowed by adult issues more loudly expressed during the CUC meetings. Although the Judiciary formed CUCs to respond to the coordina-tion challenges within the JJS, this is yet to effective-ly address children issues. The predominately adult composition of the committee naturally gives more visibility towards adult matters, leaving little room for addressing issues that are affecting children. Ad-ditionally, a lack of child representation leads to a poor articulation of their issues.

The CCUC concept is therefore a responsive collab-orative approach to addressing these challenges, and needs the representation of all major JJ stake-holders in order to ensure responsive administra-tion of justice to children. After all, the operational law on children requires all state officers to uphold

5 Recommendations of United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), the Judicial Training Centre, and the Government of Kenya on Effective Administration of Juvenile Justice, 2001.


68

the underlying principle of the ‘Best Interests’ of the child at all times.

6.2 DEFINITIONS

• Juvenile: A person under 18 years (who in this instance is in conflict with the law).

• Minor: Any person who has not reached the legal age of majority, i.e. 18 years according to Kenyan law.

• Children in conflict with the law: Young per-sons under 18 years who have failed to comply with the law.

• Court User: Any person who is a user of the court or a consumer of court services.

• Best Interest of the Child: The final goal to be achieved by any action or decision in order to ensure the well being and welfare of the child.

6.3 BEST PRACTICE: THE CHILDREN COURT USERS COMMITTEE

CCUCs have been piloted in select Children Court stations in six administrative counties across the country in recognition that the ordinary CUCs es-tablished under the National Council on Administra-tion of Justice (vide Section 34 of the Judicial Service Act of 2011) have not been effective in addressing administration of justice for minors. In furtherance of this recognition, the National Council on the Ad-ministration of Justice established in 2015 a Special Working Group on Children, replaced by a Task Force on Children Matters in 2016, to engage with the chil-dren agenda at a policy level. The CCUCs are part of these reforms and they assist JJ actors in engag-ing more collaboratively in their efforts to enhance the efficiency and accountability of their respective agencies with regard to child rights protection.

6.3.1 The CCUC Status

The CCUC is a forum that brings together stakehold-ers within the JJS to deliberate on and find local so-lutions to the challenges facing the sector. CCUCs enhance service delivery, but also are an account-ability tool to monitor and evaluate performance by

courts and their actors within the JJ chain. CCUCs are similar to a peer review mechanism for stakehold-ers to strengthen their capacities in responding to juvenile justice needs, and this practice has already received positive appraisals and reviews by key sec-tor players.For example, Kenya’s Court of Appeal’s Hon. Lady Justice Martha Koome – representing the Chief Justice of the Judiciary of Kenya and Presi-dent of the Supreme Court – at the official launch of the Nairobi-based Milimani Children Court CCUC in 2015, hailed the introduction of CCUCs in the justice sector, saying: ‘The introduction of CCUCs in the jus-tice sector is a welcome addition, and it will not only enhance service delivery in the children courts, but also promote greater access to justice for children, and protection of children rights within the juvenile justice chain’.

CCUCs have also included innovative child par-ticipation initiatives in their activities. Through the Participatory Educational Theatre project, children hosted in statutory institution have been engaging CCUC members through plays that portray their ex-periences and the hurdles that they meet within the system. Holding CCUC meetings in Children Statu-tory Institutions also geared members towards fa-miliarisation with their conditions.

Currently, CCUCs enjoy full legitimacy within Ke-nya’s judicial system. The Judiciary of Kenya, whose operational budget is derived from the Consolidat-ed Fund (Treasury), meets the operational costs of CUCs, which incorporate CCUCs. Besides this, the Judiciary has been able to endear itself to devel-opment partners who have been supportive of its massive transformation framework, thereby ensur-ing their sustainability.

6.3.2 Validation

In anticipation of the rollout of CCUCs, a coalition of key justice chain actors working within the JJS spear-headed the concept, which earned itself a positive review from most of the stakeholders, including the Judiciary, which took a leading role in its implemen-tation. Subsequently CCUCs were then rolled out in

69

six pilot counties. As previously mentioned, during the launch of CCUCs at Milimani Court Conference Hall, Lady Justice Martha Koome, appellate judge, presiding the event on behalf of the Chief Justice of the Judiciary of Kenya, praised the new addition to the justice system, signalling its entrenchment in the administration of justice system.

6.3.3 Impact

Whilst CCUC has only been operational for a short period of time, the practice has revolutionised the way the administration of the JJS operates. It has created a forum where various stakeholders may congregate, discourse and devise local practical so-lutions for the smooth dispensation of justice within the sector. Deliberations of CCUCs are also submit-ted to the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ)6 to help formulate policy directions. This has led to both the formation of a ‘Special Work-ing Group on Children’ under the NCAJ in 2015 and the subsequent formation of a ‘Taskforce on Children Matters’ by the Chief Justice in 2016, which both have the mandate to prioritise issues of children in justice.

CCUCs have also helped to highlight children mat-ters so that they are heard expeditiously by spe-cialised courts. For example, the Nairobi-based Milimani Children Court’s held a CCUC upon the recommendation by members, and could docu-ment all children cases pending in other Nairobi courts stations to expedite the cases as a special-ised Children’s Court. Similarly, through the recom-mendation of the CCUC, the same court conducted a ‘Judiciary Service Week’ in 2015 where about 4,000 children cases (civil matters) were conducted and concluded. This helped address the twin problems of unmanageable caseloads and cases of backlog at the court. The court scheduled another ‘Service

6 The NCAJ is the apex Justice coordination outfit, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Judiciary, and has senior-most justice sector agencies representation, e.g. the Attorney General’s office, the ODPP, IGP, CGP, DCI, Directors of Children Services, Probation, POMAC, WPA, Medical Services, Chief Government Pathologist, Chief Government Chemist, among others.

Week’ in April 2016, which included criminal cases and encouraged plea agreements

The CCUCs have also enhanced collaboration and strategic partnerships with stakeholders and help strengthen the capacity of various actors to en-hance child access to justice. In this regard, the Eu-ropean Union, the Kenya US Embassy, CESVI, Legal Resources Foundation (LRF), The Cradle, Pendekezo Letu and Supporting Access for Justice to Children and Youth in East Africa (SAJCEA) supported CCUCs with capacity building opportunities on pertinent areas of the JJ law. In Mombasa, the CCUCs part-nered with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) to train its membership on various aspects of the JJ Law.

6.3.4 Results of the CCUC practice

The CCUCs have enhanced cooperation, collabora-tion and coordination amongst JJ actors on the ad-ministration of children matters. This has ensured that children matters are prioritised. The CCUCs have also contributed to a reduction in violence against children who find themselves in the JJS for protection and custodial care. This has been achieved through emphasising best practices and innovative approaches such as conducting activi-ties within the children institutions to get first-hand information and an understanding of what the insti-tutions are like.

Children also get to participate in the CCUC dis-courses through innovative ways such as PETs plays, poems and even petitions. These have contributed to the formulation of proper mechanisms that re-duce violence against children. For example, chil-dren in conflict with the law now benefit from very reasonable bond terms. Some courts infrastructures were also made more child-friendly through initia-tives of the members and partners funded by the EU, and thus improved the protection of children’s rights. Consolidation of legal support among chil-dren legal aid providers has led to an improvement in legal protection, while the peer review of various actors has enhanced accountability amongst them.


70

The CCUCs have also adopted management tools that may help in evaluating and appraising their ac-tivities. For example, the adoption of the Milimani Children Court CCUC 2015 - 2016 Plan of Action (Work Plan) provides a baseline for benchmarking other CCUCs across the country. Plans are also un-derway for the construction of a model children court in Nairobi. Land has already been set-aside for this purpose, and a ground-breaking ceremony will take place later in the year.

All the six established CCUCs drew their action plans outlining all departmental tasks, including an implementation matrix to track results and their im-pact. They regularly meet on a quarterly basis.

6.3.5 Constraints

Despite the strategic role that that CCUCs play in enhancing service delivery in the JJS, it is yet to address some of the many pressing problems that plague the sector. This is because most of the sector agencies (Department of Children Services, Proba-tion and Prison) lack the human and budgetary re-sources required to deal with the challenges facing them. For example, remand homes are often caus-ing court delays due to the long distance between them and the courts. Also, the extensive sub-coun-ties administrative units are only served by few of-ficers, resulting in a small workforce left to deal with a huge demand for their services.


One of the most important lessons learnt has been regarding the importance of close collaboration and coordination among key state agencies, paired with the aim of achieving mutually-beneficial out-comes and efficiency in service delivery. Secondly, innovative approaches are turning the JJS around, leading to an expeditious dispensation of children matters and an expansion of related interventions with regard to children participation or improve-ment of child-friendly infrastructures. For example,

the judicial service weeks addressed both the back-log and quantity of cases in the courts. Furthermore, the CCUC meetings in Children Institutions helped members to get first-hand information on children in the JJS, and the PET programme made sure chil-dren were able to directly interact with the magis-trates.

6.4 COURT USERS COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

The NCAJ has developed guidelines for the forma-tion and administration of CUCs. These guidelines include ‘Specialised Courts’ under which Children’s Courts fall, therefore the same rules can be applied to CCUCs. A summary is provided here:

The guidelines suggest that there should be a CUC established at each court station with a Secretariat to coordinate the activities of the committee within the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. The com-mittee membership should reflect that of the NCAJ in as far as it is practicable, although CCUCs are at liberty to invite members on an ad hoc or perma-nent basis according to its peculiar needs. Commit-tee membership provides a platform for actors in the justice sector at a local or regional level to con-sider improvements in the operations of the courts, coordinate functions of all agencies within the jus-tice system and improve the interaction of these stakeholders. CCUCs are intended to respond to Kenya’s Justice Transformation Framework’s first key pillar, which is a ‘People focused delivery of service’.

6.4.1 Core values and objectives of the CCUC

CCUCs are guided by values such as:

a) Collective responsibility: as each stakeholder or agency bears equal responsibility for the suc-cesses and failures of the committee;

b) Interdependence: as agencies depend on each other for operation of the committee;

c) Service: as stakeholders are bound by the recog-nition that the committee is about quality ser-

71

vice delivery to the public;

d) Constitutionalism: as actors have to be guided by strict fidelity to the Constitution of Kenya and the principles espoused therein;

e) Mutual Accountability: as all stakeholders are ac-countable to each other and must perform their obligations within the committees.

The CCUC overall objective is to streamline the ad-ministration of juvenile justice within the respective courts’ jurisdiction.

Specific objectives include:

a) To ensure an accountable, coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the deliv-ery of justice;

b) To improve access to justice and the quality of service delivery by all actors in the juvenile jus-tice system;

c) To enhance public participation and engage-ment in the delivery of justice;

d) To promote information sharing and learning among stakeholders;

e) To strengthen feedback mechanisms and pro-mote dialogue among stakeholders and court users;

f ) To propose policies and legislation for imple-mentation by the NCAJ for effective delivery of justice i.e. Bond and Bail Police/ Sentencing Poli-cies/ Special Working Groups on Children Pilot-ing CCUC to deal with issues around JJS;

g) To carry out all of the functions that are inciden-tal to the operations of the committees.

6.4.2 Membership, functions, scope and priorities of CCUC

Membershipto the CCUC is expected to reflect that of the NCAJ, however, the committees are at liberty to invite members on an ad hoc or permanent basis according to its needs and peculiarities of the areas

where they operate. Membership comprises the heads of the following institutions:

1. The Resident Judge or Head of Division in the case of Magistrates,

2. Other Judges and/or Magistrates;

3. Probation and Aftercare Services Department;

4. Kenya Prisons Service;

5. Children’s Department;

6. Office of the Director of Public Prosecution;

7. Attorney General’s representative;

8. National Police Service – Station Commanders and Divisional Commanders including special-ised units within the Police Service;

9. Other agencies with prosecutorial powers with-in the stations; Labour, Environment and Mu-nicipal Councils;

10. Witness Protection Agency (WPA)

11. National Legal Education and Aid Programme (NLEAP);

12. Medical Superintendent of the local hospital;

13. Law Society of Kenya or local Bar Representa-tives;

14. A representative of the County Executive;

15. Two representatives of relevant CSO dealing with the administration of justice.

Indicatively, all CCUCs must promote gender equal-ity by ensuring that not more than two-thirds of its members are of the same gender.

Meanwhile, the main functions and scope of the committees are to:

i. Implement policies and strategies of the NCAJ;

ii. Identify challenges that hinder the expeditious delivery of juvenile justice and propose effec-tive solutions;

iii. Serve as a platform for promoting the establish-ment of peer review mechanisms among par-ticipating departments;


72

iv. Enhance information sharing and learning among stakeholders;

v. Identify needs of various agencies for interven-tion by the NCAJ;

vi. Propose relevant stakeholder training on rel-evant fields of concern to the NCAJ;

vii. Propose policy and legislative interventions to the NCAJ for the effective and expeditious dis-posal of cases;

viii. Organise and hold annual open days and ex-ecute outreach programmes;

ix. Hold fact-finding missions to child protection units and holding facilities for children including Remand Homes, Borstal Institutions, Rehabilita-tion Schools; Psychiatric Hospitals, Probation Hostels and any place of detention including hospitals;

x. Produce reports on any committee events and visits held;

xi. Promote alternative dispute resolution in accor-dance with the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution;

xii. Establish peer review mechanisms.

In pursuit of its mandate, CCUCs are required to ad-dress the following priority areas:

i. Unreasonable and inconsistent conditions of bail and bond terms (make sure Bail & Bond Policy is in place);

ii. Lack of legal aid to deserving persons (Legal Aid Bill 2015 already before parliament);

iii. Inadequate court cells and police cells facilities;

iv. Safe custody of children within the justice chain, and transportation to holding facilities;

v. Lack of holding cells for children and women.

6.4.3 CCUC modus operandi

Committees meet at least once every three months in tandem with the NCAJ schedule for meetings in

the financial year. Each CCUC is to develop its own annual work plan in awareness of the concerns and challenges of each court station. The annual work plan should take cognisance of the following key deliverables:

a) Access to justice;

b) Access to information;

c) Public participation;

d) Stakeholder engagement;

e) Timely delivery of court decisions; and,

f ) Restoration of public confidence in the justice sector.

6.4.4 Replication and up-scaling

The CCUC concept is already receiving positive re-views from various actors who have interacted with it. The Chief Justice is an important proponent of the concept and is keen to support its replication in all children court stations across the country. Never-theless, to effectively replicate the innovation across other regions, the concept has to receive wide ac-ceptance and ownership by the various stakehold-ers in the JJ sector.

6.4.5 Steps to be undertaken to implement the CCUC

As pointed elsewhere in this abstract, the CUC guidelines allow for the formation of specialised CUCs to serve the peculiar needs of such courts. In constituting such committees, the heads of Chil-dren’s Courts map out the stakeholders as per the guidelines and invite them for a meeting to explain the objectives of the committee. Then, this is fol-lowed up by a resolution to establish the commit-tee. Once formed, through its chairperson, the com-mittee will then notify the NCAJ who coordinates the CUCs at a national level.

6.4.6 Success factors

The Constitution of Kenya (CoK) 2010 has re-ar-ranged power relationships in the state in order to

73

put the people at the centre of decision-making in all spheres of public life. Article 159 of the CoK 2010 states that; Judicial authority is derived from the peo-ple and vests in, and shall be exercised by, the courts and tribunals established by or under this constitution. This therefore implies that people’s participation is at the heart of all judicial processes and it is within this unique situation that CCUC find its place. The Judiciary itself moved with speed to create an en-abling environment, legislation and policies that would help realise this constitutional requirement. The Judiciary Transformation Framework offers per-haps the most robust avenue in which desired judi-cial reforms can be realised.

In monitoring and evaluating the progress of the CUC, the following performance indicators are to be met:

a) Reduced trial period from date of taking plea to time of judgment delivery;

b) Increase in number of subjects/ minors released on bond;

c) Reduction in period taken to execute warrant of arrest and witness summons by the police;

d) Increase in number of people coming to court to seek services;

e) Reduction of complaints from the public, liti-gants and subjects/minors in remand institu-tions, and/or containment centres;

f ) Significant reduction in the number of pending cases.


Under the CUC Rules and Guidelines it states that: ‘Special Courts, namely Industrial Courts, Children’s Courts and the Municipal Council Courts inter alia shall establish Court Users Committees’. To this end, the Judiciary of Kenya, whose operational budget is derived from the Consolidated Fund (Treasury), meets the operational costs of CUC activities. There-fore, financial sustainability of the CCUC is pretty much taken care of in this arrangement. The Judi-ciary has also been able to endear itself to develop-

ment partners who have been impressed by its Ju-diciary Transformation Framework. They have, and continue to support various aspects of this trans-formation plan, thereby ensuring its sustainability, including that of CCUC.

6.5 Conclusion

CCUCs provide an avenue for addressing matters in the administration of juvenile justice, whilst also enhancing public participation, collaboration and stakeholder engagement; enhancing public trust and developing public understanding of court op-erations; promoting effective justice sector partner-ships and advancing the application of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms –especially for the diversion of children from the JJS who have been charged with petty offences. Therefore, the CCUC offers the best chance for addressing the challenges that face the JJS. Its specialised nature ensures that it restricts itself to finding practical and sustainable solutions so as to enhance service delivery. It adds value to the justice chain by infusing fresh and inno-vative ideas that are necessary for unlocking some of the challenges that impede the smooth dispen-sation of justice in the JJ sector. It has also been able to demystify children courts by the enhancement of informal engagement with children within the system, thereby boosting confidence. CCUCs have also enhanced fraternal engagement by the sector players as they work towards the common purpose of ensuring efficient service delivery. Through the CCUC, members have been able to identify their ca-pacity building needs, and some training has been specifically targeted at its membership in order to bridge the capacity gaps that render their work dif-ficult.


74

Bibliography

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC, 1999)

Better Care Network, et al. (2013) Reaching for home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries. London: Family for Every Child.

DCS (2008) National Standards Manual. JICA

GOK (2001). Children’s Act

GOK (2010). Constitution of Kenya

GOK (2013). Through Care Guidelines. Nairobi

GOK (2015). State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report for 2013-2014.

Government of Kenya (2011) Situational Analysis On Juvenile Justice Administration in Kenya. JICA, Nairobi, vi

Human Rights Watch (2001) Rights at Risk: Issues of Concern for Children in Kenya, p.2

Ottolini D (2011). The Family Conferencing: A Ground-breaking Practice for Community Based Child Protec-tion in Kenya. Kolbe Press: Nairobi

Save the Children (2011) Case management practice within Save the Children child protection programme.STC UK, p.4

Sloth Nielsen G. et al. (2010). Child Justice in Africa. A guide to Good Practice. USAID/SouthAfrica Mission, South Africa.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989)

Volz, A. (2009). Ending Violence against Children in Justice Systems. Follow-up to the UN Study. Dci. Geneve, p.15

75


guidelines manual on juvenile justice best practices · thus, i am pleased to present here the...

Documents